Opinion
No. 126380.
May 20, 2005.
Leave to Appeal Denied
SC: 126380, COA: 246672.
MARKMAN, J. I respectfully dissent from the majority's order denying plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, and instead would grant leave to appeal. The issue presented here is whether plaintiff failed to "satisfy the minimum requirements of due process required under the constitution of this state and the constitution of the United States. . . ." MCL 211.78(2). More specifically, the issue is how much notice, if any, the government must provide to a month-to-month tenant in order to "satisfy the minimum requirements of due process." In Dow v. Michigan, 396 Mich 192, 196 (1976), this Court held that "the Due Process Clause requires that an owner of a significant interest in property be given proper notice. . . ." Does a month-to-month tenant possess a "significant interest in property"? If so, what is the "proper notice" due to the month-to-month tenant? These are consequential constitutional questions that, in my judgment, merit further attention by this Court.
TAYLOR, C.J. I join the statement of Justice MARKMAN.