ADM File No. 2002-37Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective immediately. Concurrently, individuals are invited to comment on the form or the merits of the amendments during the usual comment period. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted at the Public Administrative Hearings page.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Document Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access.
(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Electronic Filing and Service.
(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) Scope and Applicability.
(a)-(d) [Unchanged.]
(e) A court may electronicallyIf a party or attorney in a case is registered as an authorized user in the electronic-filing system, a court must electronically send to that authorized user any notice, order, opinion, or other document issued by the court in that case by means of the electronic-filing system. This rule shall not be construed to eliminate any responsibility of a party, under these rules, to serve documents that have been issued by the court.
(f)-(l) [Unchanged.]
(4)-(7) [Unchanged.]
(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The amendment of MCR 1.109 provides an e-filing court with the authority to determine the most appropriate means of sending notices and other court-issued documents that are generated from its case management or local document management system.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2002-37. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-01Appointment to the Michigan Judicial Council
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.128, Judge Michael L. Jaconette is appointed to the Michigan Judicial Council for a partial term, effective immediately and ending December 31, 2023.
ADM File No. 2021-17Proposed Rescission of Administrative Order No. 1998-1 and Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.227 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering a rescission of Administrative Order No. 1998-1 and amendment of Rule 2.227 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Administrative Order No. 1998-1 Reassignment of Circuit Court Actions to District Judges
In 1996 PA 374 the Legislature repealed former MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641, which authorized the removal of actions from circuit court to district court on the ground that the amount of damages sustained may be less than the jurisdictional limitation as to the amount in controversy applicable to the district court. In accordance with that legislation, we repealed former MCR 4.003, the court rule implementing that procedure. It appearing that some courts have been improperly using transfers of actions under MCR 2.227 as a substitute for the former removal procedure, and that some procedure for utilizing district judges to try actions filed in circuit court would promote the efficient administration of justice, we adopt this administrative order, effective immediately, to apply to actions filed after January 1, 1997.
A circuit court may not transfer an action to district court under MCR 2.227 based on the amount in controversy unless: (1) The parties stipulate to the transfer and to an appropriate amendment of the complaint, see MCR 2.111(B)(2); or (2) From the allegations of the complaint, it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court.
Circuit courts and the district courts within their geographic jurisdictions are strongly urged to enter into agreements, to be implemented by joint local administrative orders, to provide that certain actions pending in circuit court will be reassigned to district judges for further proceedings. An action designated for such reassignment shall remain pending as a circuit court action, and the circuit court shall request the State Court Administrator assign the district judge to the circuit court for the purpose of conducting proceedings. Such administrative orders may specify the categories of cases that are appropriate or inappropriate for such reassignment, and shall include a procedure for resolution of disputes between circuit and district courts as to whether a case was properly reassigned to a district judge.
Because this order was entered without having been considered at a public hearing under Administrative Order No. 1997-11, the question whether to retain or amend the order will be placed on the agenda for the next administrative public hearing, currently scheduled for September 24, 1998.
Rule 2.227 Transfer of Actions on Finding of Lack of Jurisdiction
(A) Transfer to Court Which Has Jurisdiction. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, wWhen the court in which a civil action is pending determines that it lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, but that some other Michigan court would have jurisdiction of the action, the court may order the action transferred to the other court in a place where venue would be proper. If the question of jurisdiction is raised by the court on its own initiative, the action may not be transferred until the parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the jurisdictional issue.
(B) Transfers From Circuit Court to District Court.
(1) A circuit court may not transfer an action to district court under this rule based on the amount in controversy unless:
(a) the parties stipulate in good faith to the transfer and to an amount in controversy not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court; or
(b) from the allegations of the complaint, it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court.
(B)-(C) [Relettered (C)-(D) but otherwise unchanged.]
(ED) Procedure After Transfer.
(1) The action proceeds in the receiving court as if it had been originally filed there. If further pleadings are required or allowed, the time for filing them runs from the date the filing fee is paid under subrule (DC)(1). The receiving court may order the filing of new or amended pleadings. If part of the action remains pending in the transferring court, certified copies of the papers filed may be forwarded, with the cost to be paid by the plaintiff.
(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) A waiver of jury trial in the court in which the action was originally filed is ineffective after transfer. A party who had waived trial by jury may demand a jury trial after transfer by filing a demand and paying the applicable jury fee within 28 days after the filing fee is paid under subrule (DC)(1). A demand for a jury trial in the court in which the action was originally filed is preserved after transfer.
(E) [Relettered (F) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed rescission of Administrative Order No. 1998-1 and proposed amendment of MCR 2.227 would move the relevant portion of the administrative order into court rule format and make the rule consistent with the holding in Krolczyk v Hyundai Motor America, 507 Mich 966 (2021).
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-17. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-21Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.613 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.613 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 3.613 Change of Name
(A) A petition to change a name must be made on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office.
(A) [Relettered (B) but otherwise unchanged.]
(C) No Publication of Notice; Confidential Record. Upon receiving a request establishing good cause, the court may order that no publication of notice of the proceeding take place and that the record of the proceeding be confidential. Good cause may include but is not limited to evidence that publication or availability of a record of the proceeding could place the petitioner or another individual in physical danger.
(1) Evidence of the possibility of physical danger must include the petitioner’s or the endangered individual’s sworn statement stating the reason for the fear of physical danger if the record is published or otherwise available.
(2) The court must issue an ex parte order granting or denying a request under this subrule.
(3) If a request under this subrule is granted, the court must:
(a) issue a written order;
(b) notify the petitioner of its decision and the time, date, and place of the hearing on the requested name change; and
(c) if a minor is the subject of the petition, notify the noncustodial parent as provided in subrule (E), except that if the noncustodial parent’s address or whereabouts is not known and cannot be ascertained after diligent inquiry, the published notice of hearing must not include the current or proposed name of the minor.
(4) If a request under this subrule is denied, the court must issue a written order that states the reasons for denying relief and advises the petitioner of the right to request a hearing regarding the denial, file a notice of dismissal, or proceed with the petition and publication of notice.
(5) If the petitioner does not request a hearing under subrule (4) within 14 days of entry of the order, the order is final.
(6) If the petitioner does not request a hearing under subrule (4) or file a notice of dismissal within 14 days of entry of the order denying the request, the court may set a time, date, and place of a hearing on the petition and proceed with ordering publication of notice as provided in subrule (B), and if applicable, subrule (E).
(7) A hearing under subrule (4) must be held on the record.
(8) The petitioner must attend the hearing under subrule (4). If the petitioner fails to attend the hearing, the court may adjourn and reschedule or dismiss the petition for a name change.
(9) At the conclusion of the hearing under subrule (4), the court must state the reasons for granting or denying a request under this subrule and enter an appropriate order.
(B) [Relettered (D) but otherwise unchanged.]
(EC) Notice to Noncustodial Parent. Service on a noncustodial parent of a minor who is the subject of a petition for change of name shall be made in the following manner.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) Address Unknown. If the noncustodial parent’s address or whereabouts is not known and cannot be ascertained after diligent inquiry, that parent shall be served with a notice of hearing by publishing in a newspaper and filing a proof of service as provided by MCR 2.106(F) and (G). Unless otherwise provided in this rule, tThe notice must be published one time at least 14 days before the date of the hearing, must include the name of the noncustodial parent and a statement that the result of the hearing may be to bar or affect the noncustodial parent’s interest in the matter, and that publication must be in the county where the court is located unless a different county is specified by statute, court rule, or order of the court. A notice published under this subrule need not set out the contents of the petition if it contains the information required under subrule (AB). A single publication may be used to notify the general public and the noncustodial parent whose address cannot be ascertained if the notice contains the noncustodial parent’s name.
(D)-(E) [Relettered (F)-(G) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 3.613 would clarify the process courts must use after receiving a request not to publish notice of a name change proceeding and to make the record confidential.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-21. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2020-33Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.903 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.903 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 3.903 Definitions
(A) General Definitions. When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise indicates:
(1)-(18) [Unchanged.]
(19) “Party” includes the
(a) petitioner and juvenile in a delinquency proceeding,;
(i) the petitioner and juvenile.
(b) petitioner, child, respondent, and parent, guardian, or legal custodian in a protective proceeding,.
(i) the petitioner, child, and respondent
(ii) the parent, guardian, or legal custodian.
(20)-(27) [Unchanged.]
(B)-(F) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 3.903 would clarify the definition of a party in child protective proceedings.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by August 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2020-33. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-18Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.943 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.943 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 3.943 Dispositional Hearing
(A)-(D) [Unchanged.]
(E) Dispositions.
(1)-(6) [Unchanged.]
(7) Mandatory Detention for Use of a Firearm.
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) “Firearm” includes any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of an explosivemeans any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas, or air as a means of propulsion, except any smoothbore rifle or hand gun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB’s not exceeding.177 caliber by means of spring, gas, or air.
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 3.943 would update the definition of “firearm” in juvenile proceedings to be consistent with MCL 8.3t, which contains the definition referenced in the court rule’s companion statute, MCL 712A.18g.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by August 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-18. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-16Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.305 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.305 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.305 Application for Leave to Appeal
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) When to File.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) Application After Court of Appeals Decision. Except as provided in subrule (C)(4), the application must be filed within 28 days in termination of parental rights in cases where the respondent’s parental rights have been terminated, within 42 days in other civil cases, or within 56 days in criminal cases, after:
(a)-(d) [Unchanged.]
(3)-(7) [Unchanged.]
(D)-(I) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 7.305 would clarify that the 28-day timeframe for filing an application for leave to appeal applies to cases where the respondent’s parental rights have been terminated.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-16. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-13Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 8.119 Court Records and Reports; Duties of Clerks
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Filing of Documents and Other Materials. The clerk of the court shall process and maintain documents filed with the court as prescribed by Michigan Court Rules and the Michigan Trial Court Records Management Standards and all filed documents must be file stamped in accordance with these standards. The clerk of the court may only reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 1.109(D)(1) and (2), are not signed in accordance with MCR 1.109(E), or are not accompanied by a required filing fee or a request for fee waiver under MCR 2.002(B), unless already waived or suspended by court order. Documents prepared or issued by the court for placement in the case file are not subject to rejection by the clerk of the court and shall not be stamped filed but shall be recorded in the case history as required in subrule (D)(1)(a) and placed in the case file.
(D)-(L) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 8.119 would clarify that a request for a fee waiver must be filed in accordance with MCR 2.002(B), which requires the request to be made on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by August 1, 2022 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-13. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.