This case concerns the State of Michigan’s attempt to sell the land that is the former site of Ypsilanti State Hospital. The Legislature has enacted two statutes authorizing the sale of the disputed property. The first was 2002 PA 671, which directed the State Administrative Board (SAB) to sell to the highest bidder if it chose to sell the property. The state subsequently put the property up for sale and received two bids: one from appellee DPG York LLC, and the other from Toyota Technical Center, USA. DPG York claims that its bid was $25,000,000, and that Toyota’s bid was $9,000,000.
The state Department of Management and Budget (DMB) decided to reject both bids. Afterward, the Legislature eventually enacted 2004 PA 326, which repealed 2002 PA 671 and gave unlimited discretion to the SAB and the DMB to sell the property to any entity. According to the DMB Web site, the state has since agreed to sell the land to Toyota for $11,000,000.
DPG York filed the instant suit days before 2004 PA 326 was enacted. Originally, the sole cause of action was a writ of mandamus. DPG York sought to force the state to accept the bid that the firm had made under the criteria of 2002 PA 671. After 2004 PA 326 was enacted, DPG York added various constitutional claims, including an allegation that the new act was unconstitutional because it was an improper delegation of legislative power.
The sole claim still at issue in this case is whether 2004 PA 326 improperly delegates legislative authority.[1] If this Court were to rule in favor of DPG York, the $11,000,000 State of Michigan-Toyota agreement would be void, and the land would remain with the state. The Legislature would then need to enact new legislation in order to sell the property.
This case was assigned to Ingham Circuit Judge Draganchuk, who held a hearing on January 10, 2005. She dismissed all of DPG York’s claims against the state parties except for the claim that 2004 PA 326 was an improper delegation of legislative power.
The state parties filed an interlocutory appeal seeking a peremptory reversal. On February 15, 2005, this Court entered a short order reversing Judge Draganchuk’s ruling that the improper delegation claim could proceed. DPG York then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, and on December 28, 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the action to this Court to consider whether “among other issues to be addressed,” 2004 PA 326 “affords due process protection against unnecessary and uncontrolled discretionary power.” In this remand order, the Michigan Supreme Court cited Westervelt v Nat Resources Comm’n, 402 Mich 412; 263 NW2d 564 (1978), and State Highway Comm’n v Vanderkloot, 392 Mich 159; 220 NW2d 416 (1974) as precedents to be considered by this Court.
Pursuant to the Michigan Supreme Court’s order, this Court set forth an expedited briefing schedule, and this Court is supposed to enter its decision by February 13, 2006.[2]
[1] The other claims have all been resolved.
[2] The Michigan Supreme Court’s December 28, 2005 order required that this Court’s decision be entered within 45 days of December 28, 2005. This deadline for the decision would be February 11, 2006, but this date falls on a Saturday, so the effective date is February 13, 2006.
