Governmental immunity; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) (MCL 691.1401 et seq.); MCL 691.1407(1); Odom v. Wayne Cnty.; Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of summary disposition on plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v) (defining final judgment & final order); MCR 7.203(A)(1); Principle that governmental immunity under the GTLA does not protect a governmental agency from claims that it by custom or policy violated the state or federal constitution; Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs.; Mack v. City of Detroit; Jones v. Powell; Effect of the existence of factual issues; Waait & Sons Elec. Co. v. Dehko; 42 USC § 1983

The court held that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff’s gross negligence and respondeat superior liability claims against defendant-Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA). It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of summary disposition as to his federal constitutional claims in this appeal of right. Thus, it reversed in part and remanded. Although plaintiff believed he had paid delinquent taxes on his property, a tax foreclosure occurred and title was transferred to the DLBA. DLBA’s contractor later “removed all of plaintiff’s belongings from the home and demolished” the house. He asserted claims against the DLBA for “unlawful eviction, conversion, violation of procedural due process and unconstitutional search and seizure under the Michigan Constitution, violation of due process and unlawful search and seizure under” the U.S. Constitution and § 1983, gross negligence, and respondeat superior liability for the other defendants’ actions. As to the last two claims, the DLBA was engaged in a governmental function and plaintiff failed to “plead an exception to governmental immunity that applied to DLBA; moreover, none of the exceptions found in the GTLA applicable to governmental entities encompass” gross negligence or respondeat superior liability for alleged agents’ gross negligence. Thus, the DLBA, a governmental entity, was immune under the GTLA from suit based on gross negligence and respondeat superior liability for its alleged agents’ acts. As to the DLBA’s claim that the trial court erred in denying it summary disposition on plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, governmental “immunity under the GTLA does not protect a governmental agency from claims that it, by custom or policy, violated the state or federal constitution.” The DLBA asked the court to exercise its discretion to consider this issue as on leave granted. However, it declined “to do so in light of factual issues, such as whether DLBA’s agents acted under an official custom or policy, that are best resolved in a final judgment or order of the trial court before” the court considers them on appeal.