Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Title Office, Inc. v. Van Buren County Treasurer
Citations: 676 N.W.2d 207; 469 Mich. 516Docket: Docket 121077, 121078, 121177, 121178
Court: Michigan Supreme Court; March 9, 2004; Michigan; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether fees for copies of property tax records requested from a county treasurer should follow the fee schedule in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or the Transcripts and Abstracts of Records Act (TARA). The court concluded that the fees are to be calculated according to TARA. The case began when The Title Office, Inc. requested electronic copies of Van Buren County's property tax records from 1996 and 1997, and the county treasurer estimated the fee to be $26,700 based on TARA's schedule. The Title Office subsequently filed mandamus actions in several counties, arguing that the fees should be based on FOIA instead. The circuit court ruled in favor of The Title Office, leading to appeals by the county treasurers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, bound by a previous case, but also sought a special conflict panel, which was denied. The Supreme Court's review focused on statutory interpretation. It emphasized that the intent of the Legislature must be followed, and if the statute's language is clear, it should be enforced as written. FOIA allows municipalities to charge fees for public records based on actual costs of duplication, but the court determined that TARA's fee structure should apply instead. Public bodies may provide public records without charge or at a reduced fee if deemed in the public interest. Individuals receiving public assistance or those demonstrating indigency can obtain the first $20 of fees for public record requests without charge. Charges for labor, duplication, and mailing must not exceed the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of fulfilling the request, and fees must be uniform regardless of the requester's identity. The public body is required to use the most economical means for copying records. No fee will be charged for search and related activities unless it would result in unreasonably high costs, which must be specifically identified by the public body. Certain records are excluded from these provisions if they are prepared under statutes allowing their sale or if fees are already specified by such statutes. The TARA statute specifies fees for copies of records from the county treasurer’s office, thus exempting them from FOIA fee provisions. The plaintiff contends that electronic copies requested are not classified as 'transcripts' and should therefore fall under FOIA provisions. However, the court finds TARA's definition of 'transcript' aligns with its common meaning as a copy of an original writing, thus applicable in this context. The Legislature intended the ordinary meaning of 'transcript' to apply under TARA, rejecting the plaintiff's restrictive definition that limits it to written or paper copies. The plaintiff's argument, which excludes electronic copies while including photocopies, overlooks significant technological advancements and the absence of terms like 'written' or 'paper copies' in TARA. The court declines to adopt the reasoning from Oakland Co Treasurer v Title Office, Inc., which confined TARA to paper formats, asserting that 'transcript' encompasses any reproduction of records held by the treasurer's office. Consequently, electronic copies of property tax records are classified as 'transcripts' under TARA, and fees for their reproduction are governed by TARA rather than FOIA. The Court of Appeals' decision is reversed.