MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Act 94 of 1929
129.61 Misappropriation of public moneys; suit by taxpayer.
Sec. 1.
Any person or persons, firm or corporation, resident in any township or school district, paying taxes to such political unit, may institute suits or actions at law or in equity on behalf of or for the benefit of the treasurer of such political subdivision, for an accounting and/or the recovery of funds or moneys misappropriated or unlawfully expended by any public officer, board or commission of such political subdivision. Before such suit is instituted a demand shall be made on the public officer, board or commission whose duty it may be to maintain such suit followed by a neglect or refusal to take action in relation thereto. Security for costs shall be filed by the plaintiff or plaintiffs in any such suit or action and all costs and expenses of the same shall be paid by the person or persons instituting the same unless and until a recovery of such funds or moneys be obtained as the result of such proceedings.
History: 1929, Act 94, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 2711 ;-- CL 1948, 129.61
Notes of Decisions
Rohde v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 737 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 136× “The first issue in this case is whether a letter sent by a resident taxpayer to a public official that "request[s]" the official "investigate and halt" the use of public funds for illegal purposes is adequate to constitute a "demand" pursuant to MCL 129.61 so as to allow the…”
Rohde v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch., 698 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 11× “116(C)(5), arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this lawsuit. The trial court agreed, finding that plaintiffs did not bring the lawsuit on behalf of or for the benefit of the AAPS treasurer and that they failed to comply with the demand requirement of MCL 129.”
West Farms Mall, LLC v. Town of West Hartford, 901 A.2d 649 (Conn. 2006).
“2d 402 (2005) (taxpayer standing under Mich. Comp. Laws § 129.61 [2001], provided that taxpayers bring lawsuit on behalf of or for benefit of treasurer of township or school district); Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v.”
Burton Twp. v. Speck, 144 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. 1966).
· cites it 2× “Defendants say, however, that since any taxpayer could have brought a suit on the authority of CL 1948, §129.61 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.3281), there were people who could have sued and so the statute of limitations continued to run.”
Steven R Gentry v. Charter Twp. of Clinton (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 10× “That statute provides: Any person or persons, firm or corporation, resident in any township or school district, paying taxes to such political unit, may institute suits or actions at law or in equity on behalf of or for the benefit of the treasurer of such political subdivision,…”
Rohde v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 722 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. 2006).
“On October 18, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.