Alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to a city’s approval of a lot split of a residential lot; The litigation exception; MCL 15.243(1)(v); Central MI Univ Supervisory Technical Ass’n v Central MI Univ Bd of Trs; Taylor v Lansing Bd of Water & Light; Alleged violation of city ordinances; Distinguishing between administrative & legislative functions; Sun Cmtys v Leroy Twp; Alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA); Posting, signature, & approval of minutes; MCL 15.269(1) & (3); Closed sessions; MCL 15.268(1)(a)-(l); Vermilya v Delta Coll Bd of Trs; Actions to invalidate decisions; MCL 15.270; Public access; MCL 15.263(6)

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding the documents plaintiffs-property owners requested under FOIA were exempt from disclosure, by dismissing their claims alleging violations of city ordinances, or by granting defendants-city, city council, city manager, city clerk and mayor summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims under the OMA. Plaintiffs sued defendants after they approved a lot split for the lot next door to them. The trial ruled in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the court found that the trial court did not err by ruling that the documents plaintiffs requested under the FOIA were exempt from disclosure under the litigation exception, noting that “[e]ven under a narrow interpretation of this exemption . . . [the] documents were ‘related’ to the civil action.” The court also found that the trial court did not err by dismissing several of plaintiffs’ claims alleging violations of city ordinances, noting that because “the approval of a lot split does not involve the adoption of an ordinance or the revision of an ordinance,” plaintiffs’ claim that “the lot split was improperly decided on the basis of purported ordinance violations requires an appeal to the circuit court.” Finally, the court found that the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition of certain OMA claims. It found defendants did not violate the OMA or a local ordinance by failing to post signed city council meeting minutes, by failing to approve the minutes of a meeting at issue at the next meeting, by going into a closed session in another meeting, or by failing to allow public or Zoom access. The court further found that defendants did not violate the OMA by failing to make certain minutes of meetings timely available to the public, as they were made available within the specified time limit. Lastly, it held that defendants did not violate the OMA by deliberating and making decisions during a meeting closed to the public, or by allegedly submitting false and misleading minutes. Affirmed.