PROPRIETY OF COLLATERAL ATTACK Sample Clauses

PROPRIETY OF COLLATERAL ATTACK. Having determined that Xxxxx’x attack on the Commission’s decision in this case is a collateral attack, our third task is to determine whether Xxxxx’x collateral attack can succeed. This requires us to answer two questions. First, did the Commission have the authority to revoke the tax exemption certificates retroactively? As outlined above, we conclude that it did not. Second, did the Commission have subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke the tax exemption certificates? Clearly it did. Xxxxx contends not that the Commission lacked the general authority to revoke the exemption certificates, but that the Commission acted outside its statutory authority in making its order retroactive. As we have outlined, we agree with that contention. But we still must consider whether an action outside an agency’s authority is subject to collateral attack at any time, even after the expiration of the relevant direct appeal period, or whether it may only be attacked by way of a direct appeal. We start with the proposition that a wrong decision is not void; it is merely voidable.40 And only void decisions are subject to collateral attack.41 Again, as we have outlined, we conclude that the Commission’s and the trial court’s retroactivity decisions were wrong. But this conclusion does not directly address the contention that the Commission’s decision was void (and subject to collateral attack at any time), rather than merely voidable (and therefore subject to attack only by direct appeal). In Lake Township v Xxxxxx, the plaintiffs sought to declare drain proceedings “fraudulent and void.”42 The drain in that case did not fall within the statutory definition of a drain, but was instead a sewer.43 The defendants contended that “plaintiffs not having attacked the regularity of the proceedings here involved by certiorari, are estopped from questioning their regularity in this proceeding.”44 The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed on the grounds that the drain commissioner lacked legal authority to construct a sewer and therefore his actions exceeded his 39 MCL 205.735(1); Parkview Mem Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116, 118-120; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 40 Xxxxxx x Xxxxxx, 253 Mich 334, 337; 253 NW 174 (1931). 41 Id.; Jackson City Bank & Trust Co v Xxxxxxxx, 271 Mich 538, 544; 260 NW 908 (1935). 42 Lake Twp v Xxxxxx, 257 Mich 135, 137; 241 NW 237 (1932). 43 Id. at 139. 44 Id. at 141. authority under the statute.45 It therefore determined that the drain commissioner’s collateral- e...