If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

CHARLES KAMINSKI and JOHN MARRA, UNPUBLISHED August 25, 2022 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 357891 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF LINCOLN PARK, LC No. 20-013442-CB Defendant-Appellant.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and HOOD, JJ.

HOOD, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only because we are bound by Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). This case illustrates that Kendzierski was wrongly decided. On their face, the 2002 CBA and the early retirement agreement both appear to unambiguously provide for retirement benefits during retirement. See id. at 331-334 (MCCORMACK, J., dissenting). Although we cannot consider parties’ conduct when analyzing an unambiguous contract, it is noteworthy that plaintiffs, defendant, the emergency manager, and the State Treasurer appear to have had a shared understanding that the 2002 CBA and early retirement agreement were effective at the time the emergency manager issued Order 24. Through the issuance of Order 24 and his April 2015 correspondence with then-State Treasurer Clinton, the emergency manager indicated his understanding that the 2002 CBA was effective at least through April 2015. But because we are bound by Kendzierski, I concur in the result.

/s/ Noah P. Hood

-1-