BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC POLICE & FIRE RETIREE PREFUNDED GROUP HEALTH & INSURANCE TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant,
CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendant-Appellee
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Oakland Circuit Court. LC No. 2012-127682-CZ.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and OWENS and FORT HOOD, JJ.
[309 Mich.App. 613] PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retiree Prefunded Group [309 Mich.App. 614] Health and Insurance Trust (board of trustees or trustees) appeals by right Oakland Circuit Judge Shalina D. Kumar's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(5) (lack of standing), (C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System (retirement system trustees) and plaintiff trustees filed a complaint in circuit court asserting that defendant funded the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System, which provided retirement benefits to retired police and firefighters. Plaintiffs also asserted that defendant funded the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retiree Prefunded Group Health and Insurance Plan (the trust), a tax-exempt voluntary employees' beneficiary association, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(9), which provided health, optical, dental, and life-insurance benefits to police and firefighters who retired on or after August 22, 1996. The trust's board of trustees is composed of five members: the city's mayor, the city's finance director, and a firefighter, a police officer, and a fifth trustee whom the other trustees would select and who could participate in the trust.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, the city's emergency manager (EM), Louis Schimmel, entered into termination collective bargaining agreements [309 Mich.App. 615] (CBAs) with the various police and firefighter unions. The EM acted under the authority of § 19(1)(k) of 2011 PA 4, MCL 141.1519(1)(k). The city also contracted
to receive police services from Oakland County effective August 1, 2011, and fire services from Waterford Township, effective February 1, 2012. As of April 24, 2012, the CBAs outlining benefits funded by the trust included the Police Supervisors Contract Termination Agreement, the Police Non-Command Contract Termination Agreement, the Fire Contract Termination Agreement, the Police Supervisors Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Police Non-Command Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the Fire Collective Bargaining Agreement. On April 25, 2012, the city's EM issued Executive Orders 206 and 207, which modified the healthcare benefits set forth in the various CBAs. The executive orders were identical, with Executive Order 206 applying to firefighter retirees and Executive Order 207 applying to police retirees. Executive Orders 206 and 207 took effect on July 1, 2012, and modified retirees' healthcare benefits by requiring pre-Medicare-aged retirees to enroll in a Humana PPO-08 Plan, limiting Medicare-aged retirees to a Medicare Advantage Plan G, eliminating defendant's reimbursement of retirees' Medicare Part B premium, and requiring pre-Medicare-aged retirees to pay the amount above the " hard cap" of 2011 PA 152 or pay 20 percent of annual rates, whichever is greater.
[309 Mich.App. 616] On August 29, 2012, a stipulated order of dismissal was entered as to the claim of the retirement system trustees because of Executive Order 224, which memorialized a settlement. On the same day, a stipulated order was entered authorizing plaintiff board of trustees to file an amended complaint alleging that the city improperly reduced retiree healthcare benefits through Executive Orders 206 and 207. Count I alleged a violation of Const 1963, art 9, § 24; Count II alleged that through Executive Order 225 the city improperly sought to amend the trust by eliminating its obligation to financially contribute to the trust, and Count III alleged a breach of contract claim. Plaintiff sought a declaratory ruling, an injunction, and monetary damages.
On February 13, 2013, the city moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(5), (C)(8), and (C)(10). In its supporting brief the city argued that plaintiff trustees lacked standing to sue for a certain level of healthcare benefits because it was not responsible for the level of retirees' healthcare benefits. Rather, the city argued, the board of trustees was only responsible for ensuring compliance with the Internal Revenue Code, managing and investing trust funds, and providing health, optical, dental, and life-insurance benefits to police and firefighters who retired on or after August 22, 1996, as required by the various CBAs. The city also argued that Count I was meritless because of our Supreme Court's holding in Studier v Michigan Pub Sch Employees Retirement Bd, 472 Mich. 642; 698 N.W.2d 350 (2005), that healthcare [309 Mich.App. 617] benefits are not protected by Const 1963, art 9, § 24, and that Count III was meritless because the emergency manager had the authority under 2011 PA 4 to unilaterally modify collective bargaining agreements.
On May 22, 2013, the trial court entered its opinion and order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. The trial court first ...