Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shah v. CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 21, 2008No. Docket 271252Published

1DissentMeter, J.

Because I do not believe that the severance payment at issue in this case constituted “earnings” under 15 USC 1672(a), I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s order.

15 USC 1672(a) defines “earnings” as “compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.” As noted in Vanderlaan v Tri-County Community Hosp, 209 Mich App 328, 332; 530 NW2d 186 (1995), clear statutory language should be applied as written. The severance payment Shah…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kokoszka v. BelfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Lane v. Kindercare Learning Centers, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Pallante v. International Venture Investments, Ltd.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1985
  4. Vanderlaan v. Tri-County Community HospitalMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API