TED WEIMAN V STATE OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
TED WEIMAN, DENNIS J. PRESTON, MADGE E.
SMITH, MARTIN D. GARCHOW, TERRANCE T.
TORKA, JERRY A. THOMAS, DARWIN E.
SEBRING, GARY W. THOMPSON, MICHAEL J.
LASECKI, SUSANN M. PAWLOSKI and LINDA
L. ROOSE,
UNPUBLISHED
July 19, 1996
Plaintiffs–Appellees,
No. 186534
LC No. 91-013215 CM
v
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
MILITARY AFFAIRS and DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY,
Defendants–Appellants.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Fitzgerald and C.A. Nelson,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, current and former members of the Michigan National Guard, brought a claim against
defendants for per diem benefits mandated by MCL 32.261; MSA 4.694. The Court of Claims
granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Defendants appeal
as of right. We affirm.
Defendants argue that the trial court’s construction of MCL 32.261; MSA 4.694 results in a
mandate to the Legislature that it must appropriate the funds to make the payments and that this is
improper because one legislature cannot bind the actions of a future legislature. However, a plain
reading of the statute does not show an intention to mandate appropriation. Instead, the funds due
under MCL 32.261; MSA 4.694, are to come from appropriations already passed for maintenance of
the Michigan National Guard. Because this statute does not provide for a remedy if the state fails to
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
meet its obligations, defendants’ reliance on Grand Traverse Co v State of Michigan, 450 Mich 457;
538 NW2d 1 (1995), is misplaced. Further, this argument can be rejected based on the reasoning of
City of Adrian v Michigan, 420 Mich 554, 564-565; 362 NW2d 708 (1994).
Defendants also claim that sovereign immunity precludes any recovery for plaintiffs. However,
plaintiffs properly assert that their claim was brought under contract. United States v Larinoff, 431
US 864; 97 S Ct 2150; 53 L Ed 2d 48 (1977). Therefore, sovereign immunity is not a defense.
AuSable Manistee Action Council, Inc v State of Michigan, 182 Mich App 596, 598; 452 NW2d
832 (1989).
Finally, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claim is barred by MCL 600.6431; MSA 27A.6431
because plaintiffs failed to file a notice of intention to file suit one year before actually filing suit. This
argument is without merit. Section 6431 requires that a written claim or notice of intention to file a claim
be filed within one year “after such claim has accrued.” A reading of the plain language evinces no
requirement that a notice of claim be filed one year before suit is actually filed.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Charles A. Nelson
-2
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.
