In Feaheny v. Caldwell, 175 Mich App 291; 437 NW2d 358 (1989), the plaintiff raised allegations of both tortious interference with an employment contract and tortious interference with economic expectancy. Feaheny, supra at 294. Recognizing that each of these torts is distinct, id. at 301, the Feaheny Court observed that "the threshold question that must be resolved for plaintiff to proceed on any theory of tortious interference is what type of relationship exists." Id. at 302. Because the plaintiff's employment contract was at-will, the Court concluded that "there was no cognizable tortious interference cause of action existing independent of that contract." Id. The Court recognized a distinct cause of action where the alleged tortfeasor interferes with an advantageous relationship, whether or not based upon a contract, and that there can be interference with an at-will employment contract.