Supreme Court to decide whether MSU misled Detroit College of Law retirees

LANSING – Michigan Supreme Court justices quizzed attorneys on Jan. 21 about whether Michigan State University failed to uphold contractual obligations made by the former Detroit College of Law after the schools merged was filed soon enough.

Elizabeth Watza, assistant general counsel for MSU, argued that the claim came outside of the statute of limitations, or in other words, wasn’t filed in time.

Mark Cousens, an attorney for a married couple who are both former employees of the Detroit College of Law and believe contractual obligations are owed to them, argued the university misled the couple about its obligations through the merger. And he noted MSU only shared a transfer agreement with the couple after their two-year window to bring a claim expired.

Amy and Robert McCormick filed the lawsuit against MSU in the fall of 2022 after learning of the terms of the merger between the university and the Detroit College of Law, which included terms that MSU would be responsible for paying and performing certain liabilities and obligations. The McCormicks have argued, including successfully in a 2-1 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, that MSU committed an act of fraudulent concealment by not notifying them sooner of the impact of the merger on them.

The McCormicks were both tenured faculty members at the Detroit College of Law before it merged with MSU in the summer of 2020. In 2013, they both agreed to resign from their positions with the law school “in exchange for certain contractual guarantees.” Robert McCormick retired in exchange for benefits, and Amy McCormick continued teaching as an emeritus professor, teaching one class per academic year while maintaining the healthcare coverage she received as a tenured faculty member.

As the merger developed, the couple had concerns about the Detroit College of Law, in whatever future form it took, honoring contractual obligations to them. They received mixed messages from officials, according to their lawsuit.

Amy McCormick was told by a Detroit College of Law dean that the integration would be done through a sale of assets rather than a merger, meaning MSU would not be responsible for any of the DCL’s responsibilities. And an attorney for MSU told Amy McCormick that any contract claims the couple had would have to be made against the Detroit College of Law.

The McCormicks initially pursued a claim against the Detroit College of Law. Then, in May of 2022, MSU notified the couple of the existence of a transfer agreement. Four months later, the couple filed the lawsuit the Supreme Court is hearing.

The McCormicks are arguing that MSU essentially tried to conceal the agreement.

Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch asked Watza whether she believed the clock should reset for any legal filings if fraudulent concealment was found in a case. Watza acknowledged resetting the clock would be appropriate in that instance.

However, Watza told justices that the McCormicks weren’t diligent in their inquiry with university officials about who might be responsible for claims.

Cousens argued MSU is responsible for fraudulently concealing the deal, citing an email from a university lawyer telling the couple the now-defunct entity of the DCL would be solely responsible for any contractual obligations.

“Michigan State hid its liability,” Cousens argued. “Now, this court should not endorse the ability of a defendant to hide behind lies and misrepresentations … the whole point here is Michigan State, deliberately or not deliberately misled the plaintiffs (the McCormicks), and as a result, the plaintiffs could not have known that they should have sued Michigan State, and when they learned, that’s when they filed suit.”

The court is expected to rule in the case at a later date.

Contact Karly Graham at kgraham@lsj.com. Follow her on X at @KarlyGrahamJrn.