 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Borchers v. Crawford County8/23/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Fort Hood and R. S. Gribbs, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition and denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998); Willis v Deerfield Twp, 257 Mich App 541, 548; 669 NW2d 279 (2003). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is properly granted if no factual dispute exists, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Rice v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 252 Mich App 25, 31; 651 NW2d 188 (2002). In deciding a motion brought under subrule (C)(10), a court considers all the evidence submitted by the parties, including any affidavits, pleadings, and admissions, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 30-31. The nonmoving party must present more than mere allegations to establish a genuine issue of material fact for resolution at trial. Id. at 31.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by determining that no question of fact existed regarding whether the November 12, 1985, resolution rescinding post-retirement health insurance benefits for elected officials applied to plaintiff. We agree with the trial court. Throughout this action, plaintiff maintained that he was promised the same benefits that defendant provided elected county officials. Accordingly, the November 12, 1985, resolution rescinding post-retirement health care benefits for elected officials applied to plaintiff as well. Plaintiff argues that his understanding of the November 12, 1985, resolution was that it did not apply to him, and he relies on the affidavits of former board members stating that they did not intend that resolution to apply to him. But no resolution was passed indicating that the resolution did not apply to plaintiff. MCL 46.1(2) requires that the business of a county board of commissioners be performed at a public meeting in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq. Closed sessions are permitted only with respect to those matters articulated in MCL 15.268, which are not involved in this case. MCL 46.1(3). Thus, regardless whether individual board members told plaintiff that the November 12, 1985, resolution did not apply to him, the board as a whole did not address the issue in an open meeting as required under MCL 46.1(2) and pass a resolution that the November 12, 1985, resolution did not apply to plaintiff, thus entitling plaintiff to post-retirement health insurance benefits. The only resolution that the board passed regarding this issue occurred on February 1, 2002, when the board denied plaintiff such benefits.
Plaintiff also argues that defendant could not unilaterally revoke his entitlement to post-retirement health insurance benefits. Plaintiff principally relies on Barnell v Taubman Co, Inc, 203 Mich App 110; 512 NW2d 13 (1993). In that case, this Court determined that oral statements made to the plaintiff formed an express agreement with the plaintiff that his employment could be terminated only for just cause. Id. at 118. This Court further held that the defendant employer could not unilaterally change the nature of the employment relationship to at-will employment. Id. at 118-120. Plaintiff in the instant case argues that, similar to Barnell, defendant could not unilaterally revoke his entitlement to post-retirement health insurance benefits.
Barnell involved a wrongful discharge dispute and whether the parties had an express contract or whether, based on the
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|