Parraghi v. Pizzimenti

Full title: PARRAGHI v. PIZZIMENTI

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 29, 1971

37 Mich. App. 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

194 N.W.2d 485

Opinion

Docket No. 12391.

Decided November 29, 1971.

Appeal from Wayne, James Montante, J. Submitted Division 1 November 5, 1971, at Detroit. (Docket No. 12391.) Decided November 29, 1971.

Complaint for mandamus by Elmer Parraghi against Donald J. Pizzimenti and Peoples Community Hospital Authority to compel the calling of a special meeting of the board of directors of Peoples Community Hospital Authority. Writ denied. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Henry Zaborowski, for plaintiff.

Cozadd, Shangle Smith, for defendants.

Before: V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and O'HARA,^_ JJ.

_ Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff is a member of the board of directors of the Peoples Community Hospital Authority, a public body corporate authorized by statute.¹ By a letter dated June 23, 1971, plaintiff and two other board members requested that Donald J. Pizzimenti, the chairman of the board, call a special meeting on July 15, 1971, for the express purpose of electing new officers. The chairman denied the request and pointed out that the rules and regulations adopted by the board provide for the election of officers in January or February of each year.

1 1945 PA 47; MCLA 331.1- 331.11; MSA 5.2456(1)-5.2456(11).

Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus to compel the call of a special meeting; the writ was denied. Plaintiff appeals, relying principally on the following statutory language: "The chairman shall call a meeting at any time upon written request of 3 members of the board." MCLA 331.6; MSA 5.2456(6).

It is well settled that a trial court's refusal to issue a writ of mandamus will only be reviewed for abuse of discretion.² We find no abuse. While it is true that the statute requires the chairman to call a meeting at the request of three board members (with no qualifications regarding the purpose behind the request), we nevertheless feel that since the request was dated one day before a regularly scheduled board meeting, and since the board holds regularly scheduled meetings each month (save July and August) the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for a writ of mandamus.

2 See Iron County Board of Supervisors v. Crystal Falls, 23 Mich. App. 319 (1970), and the cases cited therein.

Affirmed.