Speaker Law
Blog

On April 15, 2014, in a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that absences attributable to fear of bullying were not “willful” absences under MCL 712A.2(a)(4). In People v. Napieraj (Docket No. 314305), the respondent, a minor, was found guilty of school truancy after he was absent from school a number of times. But the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that the evidence indicated that the respondent’s absences were not willful. Both the respondent’s mother and the petitioner school had indicated that many of the respondent’s absences were attributable to illness and bullying, and the school’s attendance record indicated that the absences were excused based on calls made by the mother. The Court of Appeals held that the school could not require the mother to present them with a doctor’s note. Rather, the mother could exercise reasonable parental discretion, and the absences should have been excused upon her request. The Court of Appeals further noted that the referee should have discussed the willfulness element in the decision below and that the referee erred in failing to consider the individual facts of the respondent’s case.

Labels: bullying, Court of Appeals, Judge Borrello, Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly, Judge Whitbeck, juvenile appeal, juvenile code, Oakland County, published opinion, truancy

---

On December 10, 2013, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld sanctions for the violation of a consent order that was entered after the discovery deadline had already passed. In HTC Global Services, Inc. v. Asher (Docket No. 304096), the appellant, the defendant’s attorney below, was sanctioned for failing to respond to discovery requests by the agreed upon deadline. According to the Court of Appeals, evidence indicated that the appellant had agreed with the plaintiff to answer discovery requests by September 13, 2010. The Trial Court’s consent order was not entered until September 15, 2010, after the deadline had passed, but the agreement was made between the parties on August 31, 2010. The Court of Appeals held that the appellant was properly sanctioned for violating the order, even though it was violated before the order was actually entered, because both parties had prior knowledge of the deadline. The law with respect to this issue seems somewhat unclear, and the Michigan Court of Appeals cited no authorities with respect to this issue in its HTC Global opinion. Previously, in Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), the Court of Appeals mentioned without disapproval that the trial court had ordered from the bench that discovery responses be submitted by April 16, 1997, and did not enter a written order stating the same until June 9, 1997, after the deadline had passed. However, in HTC Global, there is not even any mention of a bench ruling—only of an agreement between the parties. Furthermore, in Stevenson v. Nizzi, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 10, 2006 (Docket No. 255973), the Court of Appeals stated that “all orders must be in writing” and that the fourteen-day deadline in that case began when the written order was entered.

Labels: appeal of sanction, attorneys fees, Court of Appeals, violated order that had not been entered, Wayne County

---