Kulling v Kirk Design, Inc
Digest no. 3.07
Cite as: Kulling v Kirk Design, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued February 1, 1990 (Docket No. 89-910000-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: David Kulling
Employer: Kirk Design, Inc.
Docket no.: B87-16118-107903
Date of decision: February 1, 1990
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The claimant was not entitled to establish a benefit year under Section 46a(1), the alternative earnings qualifier, because he owned more than a 50% proprietary interest in the employing unit and Section 46(d) (now 46(g)) controls.
FACTS: Claimant owned 100% of the employing corporation. On March 5, 1987 he stopped drawing his salary from the corporation. The corporation stopped operating on September 30, 1987. On October 25, 1987 the claimant filed for unemployment benefits. The MESC denied the claim because claimant had more than a 50% proprietary interest in the employing corporation, only established 18 credit weeks and thus could not establish a benefit year.
The claimant argued under the alternative qualifier provision, Section 46a(1), he should be able to establish a benefit year.
DECISION: The claimant was not entitled to establish a benefit year under Section 46a(1), the alternative qualifier.
RATIONALE: The court noted that Section 46(d) begins with the statement: “Notwithstanding subsection (a)…” and the fact subsection (d) was enacted after Section 46a and concluded the legislative intent of 46(d) was to limit an individual with a substantial interest in an employing unit from receiving benefits. Section 46a(1) operates as an exception to Section 46(a), not Section 46(d).
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99