CASCO TOWNSHIP V SECRETARY OF STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TOWNSHIP OF CASCO, TOWNSHIP OF
COLUMBUS, PATRICIA ISELER, and JAMES
P. HOLK,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 25, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellants,
v
SECRETARY OF STATE, DIRECTOR OF THE
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS, and CITY OF
RICHMOND,
No. 244101
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000991-CZ
Defendants-Appellees,
and
WALTER WINKLE and PATRICIA WINKLE
Updated Copy
June 18, 2004
Intervening
Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Cavanagh and Cooper, JJ.
ZAHRA, P.J. (dissenting.)
I respectfully dissent. The Home Rule City Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1 et seq., is not
ambiguous as it relates to attachment and detachment elections. See Williamston v Wheatfield
Twp, 142 Mich App 714, 718-719; 370 NW2d 325 (1985) ("There is no ambiguity in the
detachment procedure provided for by the home rule cities act. Read literally, its provisions are
clear. . . . [B]ecause the language of the provisions [MCL 117.9 and MCL 117.9b] now in effect
is clear and unambiguous, we are precluded from construction or interpretation to vary that plain
meaning."). The HRCA permits a single election to determine the detachment of property from
one city to two townships. Accordingly, the Secretary of State was duty-bound to certify the
petition and conduct the election. I would reverse.
I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that the HRCA is ambiguous
merely because the statutory language does not expressly sanction or prohibit a single election to
detach territory from one city and attach it to more than one township. To determine whether a
-1-
statute is ambiguous, we must examine the relevant statutory provisions in context and determine
whether the language of the statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation. If statutory
provisions are in conflict, and therefore susceptible to more than one meaning, an ambiguity
exists. Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 467, 480; 663 NW2d 447 (2003)
(explaining that "if two provisions of the same contract irreconcilably conflict with each other,
the language of the contract is ambiguous"); American Alternative Ins Co, Inc v York, 469 Mich
948; 670 NW2d 567 (2003) (Markman, J., concurring) (noting that the rules applicable to
determining whether a contract is ambiguous may apply with equal force to matters of statutory
construction). However, where, as here, a reasonable construction of the statute considered in
context leads to but one conclusion, an ambiguity may not be declared.
MCL 117.6 provides for an election originating by a single petition to detach territory
from, or add territory to, multiple cities, or for the consolidation of multiple cities, villages, or
townships into one city:
Cities may be incorporated or territory detached therefrom or added
thereto, or consolidation made of 2 or more cities or villages into 1 city, or of a
city and 1 or more villages into 1 city, or of 1 or more cities or villages together
with additional territory not included within any incorporated city or village into 1
city, by proceedings originating by petition therefor signed by qualified electors
who are freeholders residing within the cities, villages, or townships to be affected
thereby . . . .
Admittedly, the present case involves a detachment from one city, rather than multiple cities.
Additionally, the present petition was not initiated under MCL 117.6, but was initiated under
MCL 117.11, which requires the involvement of the Secretary of State.1 Nonetheless, MCL
117.6 shows that the Legislature intended to allow more than two cities, villages, or townships to
be involved in a single detachment election. "It is a well-established rule of statutory
construction that provisions of a statute must be construed in light of the other provisions of the
statute to carry out the apparent purpose of the Legislature." Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc,
442 Mich 201, 209; 501 NW2d 76 (1993). Significantly, no language in MCL 117.11 conflicts
or is otherwise inconsistent with the language of MCL 117.6. Rather, the relevant portions of
these statutory provisions are consistent.
Under MCL 117.11, once the Secretary of State certifies a petition, the Secretary of State
is required to send a copy of the petition to the clerk of "each city, village or township to be
affected," and "notice directing that at the next general election occurring not less than 40 days
thereafter the question of making the incorporation, consolidation or change of boundaries
petitioned for shall be submitted to the electors of the district to be affected . . . ." (Emphasis
added.) MCL 117.9(1) explains the meaning of the phrase "the district to be affected" under the
HRCA: "[t]he district to be affected by every such proposed incorporation, consolidation, or
1
MCL 117.11 brings the Secretary of State into the petition certification process where the
territory to be affected by the proposed boundary change is situated in more than one county.
-2-
change of boundaries shall be deemed to include the whole of each city, village, or township
from which territory is to be taken or to which territory is to be annexed." (Emphasis added.)
This broad definition indicates that a single election district is established to determine a change
of boundary lines affecting multiple cities, villages, or townships. The Legislature uses general
language in describing "the district to be affected," allowing for the phrase to encompass more
than just two cities, villages, or townships. Accordingly, because the Legislature refers to a
single petition as it relates to "the district to be affected" in MCL 117.11, and the district to be
affected is broadly defined to include multiple cities, villages, and townships, I conclude that the
unambiguous language of the HRCA allows for a single election to be held to detach territory
from a city to multiple townships. I would reverse.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.