COUNTY OF OAKLAND V MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
OAKLAND COUNTY,
FOR PUBLICATION
September 14, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 288812
Court of Claims
LC No. 08-000051-MZ
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and JANSEN and DONOFRIO, JJ.
SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).
Because I agree that the Court of Claims possessed subject-matter jurisdiction, I concur
in the result. I write separately because I conclude that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction
based on plaintiff seeking monetary damages from a state agency.
As noted by the majority, the jurisdiction of the court of claims is set forth in MCL
600.6419, which provides in relevant part:
(1) Except as provided in [MCL 600.6419a] and [MCL 600.6440], the
jurisdiction of the court of claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, shall be
exclusive . . . . The court has power and jurisdiction:
(a) To hear and determine all claims and demands, liquidated and unliquidated,
ex contractu and ex delicto, against the state and any of its departments,
commissions, institutions, arms, or agencies.
***
(4) This chapter shall not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over . . .
proceedings for declaratory or equitable relief, or any other actions against state
agencies based upon the statutes of this state in such case made and provided,
which expressly confer jurisdiction thereof upon the circuit court . . . . [Emphasis
added.]
MCL 600.6419a then provides additional, concurrent jurisdiction to the Court of Claims
for “any demand for equitable relief and any demand for a declaratory judgment when ancillary
to a claim filed pursuant to section 6419.”
-1-
Plaintiff in this case made a claim or demand against defendant for a monetary award
based on its allegation that the money was improperly collected. Thus, it expressed a claim
against the state pursuant to MCL 600.6419(1)(a), which would be exclusively within the Court
of Claims. That plaintiff also requested declaratory relief to prevent defendant from improperly
raising rates in the future did not deprive the Court of Claims of jurisdiction, as the claim was
ancillary to the request for money damages and, therefore, the Court of Claims had concurrent
jurisdiction over the declaratory relief under MCL 600.6419a.
Michigan caselaw supports this interpretation. Initially, this Court repeatedly, and
without change from our Supreme Court, held that the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction
over all money damage cases. See Pomann, Callanan & Sofen, PC v Wayne Co Dep’t of Social
Services, 166 Mich App 342, 346; 419 NW2d 787 (1988) (“This exclusive jurisdiction [in the
Court of Claims] encompasses all claims against the state and its instrumentalities for money
dmages.”).
In 1994, our Supreme Court finally addressed Court of Claims jurisdiction in Silverman v
Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 445 Mich 209, 215; 516 NW2d 54 (1994) (“This Court has not
decided a case in which the statute is at issue . . . .”). Silverman involved a claim for both
equitable relief and money damages, and the Supreme Court determined that the Court of Claims
had proper jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court again considered a Court of Claims jurisdictional issue
in Parkwood Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v State Housing Dev Auth, 468 Mich 763; 664 NW2d
185 (2003). Parkwood involved a claim only under contract—no money damages. Because
prior caselaw had required money damages before the Court of Claims had jurisdiction, the
lower courts had determined that there was no jurisdiction based on the lack of money damages.
Our Supreme Court observed, “[t]he plain language of § 6419(1)(a), the primary source of
jurisdiction for the Court of Claims, does not refer to claims for money damages or to claims for
declaratory relief.” Parkwood, 468 Mich at 772. Accordingly, it concluded that nothing in the
statute required money damages and explicitly “disavowed” any caselaw “that have seemingly
interpreted § 6419(1)(a) as granting Court of Claims jurisdiction over claims for money damages
only (emphasis added).” 468 Mich at 775. It left untouched, however, the prior caselaw
providing that where money damages were involved, the Court of Claims had exclusive
jurisdiction.
The most recent case involving Court of Claims jurisdiction is Duncan v State of
Michigan, 284 Mich App 246; 774 NW2d 89 (2009) rev’d ___ Mich ___ (July 16, 2010, Docket
Nos. 139345, 139346 and 139347). In Duncan, this Court concluded that the claim sounded
neither in contract nor tort, so that the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction. 284 Mich App
at 287.1 Notably, the plaintiffs in Duncan were not seeking money damages; they were
1
The continued viability of this holding is in question, however, based on the Supreme Court’s
reversal “for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.” ___ Mich at ___.
Because the dissent never reached the question of jurisdiction in the Court of Claims, the
statements in the majority opinion may now be simply dicta, as they are unnecessary to the
-2-
exclusively seeking declaratory relief without a contract or tort claim, which is explicitly reserved
to the circuit courts. That is not the case here, where plaintiff is explicitly requesting money
damages.
Additionally, it makes no difference whether plaintiff receives monetary damages or a
later credit or offset from future payments. An order that a credit or offset be provided costs the
state money and, therefore, is an award of money damages, regardless of whether it is paid or
simply offset. See Silverman, 445 Mich at 216, n 7 (“The plaintiff phrases his request for money
damages as a request for a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a refund. That does not
alter the nature of the claim—a demand for money damages.”); Parkwood, 468 Mich at 774 n 8
(“[W]e specifically reaffirm the statements in Silverman recognizing that the nature of the claim,
rather than how the plaintiff phrases the request for relief, controls how a court will characterize
the claim.”).
Accordingly, because plaintiff’s claim against defendant for money damages gave the
Court of Claims jurisdiction, and MCL 600.6419a provided for concurrent jurisdiction for the
Court of Claims to determine the ancillary declaratory relief requested, the Court of Claims
properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition based on lack of jurisdiction.
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
resolution of the case. However, to the extent that the reversal based on the dissent is viewed as
“reversal on other grounds,” the statements in the majority’s published opinion may remain
controlling. Nevertheless, the holding does not change the outcome of the present case because,
unlike the present case, Duncan did not involve money damages.
-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.
