Elizabeth A. Weaver

The case concerned a complaint for superintending control filed by Melissa Burwell against the Attorney Grievance Commission in the Michigan Supreme Court. The court considered the complaint and denied relief. Its decision rested on the determination that it was not persuaded the requested relief should be granted. Justice Weaver did not participate in the matter.

procedure

In McCarthy v. Scofield, plaintiff Patrick McCarthy moved to disqualify four Michigan Supreme Court justices from his underlying civil case against the Department of Human Services, Oakland County officials, and related entities, alleging improper political, social, or business relationships that would create bias. Each challenged justice issued a statement denying the motion, asserting no pecuniary interests, personal relationships, or other basis for disqualification under court rules, and characterizing the claims as untrue and without foundation. Some justices also noted their administrative roles in child welfare matters were separate from their judicial duties and expressed broader concerns about how new disqualification procedures encourage frivolous motions and divert court resources. The statements collectively affirm that the motions lacked merit and did not warrant recusal.

procedure

The case involved the City of Rockford challenging actions or authority of the 63rd District Court and its chief judge in Kent County, with the county intervening as a defendant. After the Court of Appeals issued a judgment against the city, the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed an application for leave to appeal. The Court denied the application, explaining that it was not persuaded the questions presented merited further review. Justice Weaver indicated she would have granted leave to appeal.

procedure

In Hendee v. Putnam Township, property owners sought to develop a 144-acre parcel into a 498-unit manufactured housing community but were denied rezoning from agricultural use to single-family residential and a planned unit development by the township. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' exclusionary zoning claim was not ripe for judicial review because they had not applied for rezoning or a variance specifically for manufactured housing use. The court reasoned that a zoning ordinance is not facially invalid merely for not authorizing every possible use, and the denial of lower-density rezoning did not automatically make further applications futile, requiring the township to have an opportunity to decide on the proposed use first.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the termination of Billy Joe Hansen's parental rights to his minor daughter, Genevieve Brookelyn Hansen, after the Department of Human Services petitioned the Manistee Circuit Court Family Division. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' July 2009 judgment that had upheld the termination and remanded the matter to the trial court. The remand directs reconsideration of the termination decision specifically in light of the Court's recent ruling in In re Mason, which addressed related issues in parental rights cases. Justice Weaver dissented, arguing that In re Mason was incorrectly decided and did not apply to the facts here.

family law

This medical malpractice case concerned whether plaintiff satisfied the notice-of-intent (NOI) requirements of MCL 600.2912b(2) by timely mailing the NOI to defendants' prior business address, even though defendants did not receive it until after the two-year limitations period had expired. The Michigan Supreme Court held that plaintiff complied with the statute because proof of mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of compliance, the mailing occurred before the limitations period expired, and the date of actual receipt is irrelevant. The Court further held that the limitations period was tolled under the amended version of MCL 600.5856(c) as interpreted in Bush v. Shabahang, and that any defect in the NOI should be disregarded under MCL 600.2301 because defendants ultimately received the notice, their substantial rights were unaffected, and allowing the opportunity for settlement furthers justice. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment that had affirmed dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.

proceduretorts & liability