ADM File No. 2023-21
Adoption of Local Court Rule 2.518 for the 20th Circuit Court and the Ottawa County Probate Court
To read this file, visit https://www.courts.michigan.gov/rules-administrative-orders-and-jury-instructions/proposedadopted/local-court-rules/.
ADM File No. 2022-10
Proposed Alternative Amendments of Rule 8.126 of the Michigan Court Rules
To read this file, visit www.courts.michigan.gov/rulesadministrative-orders-and-jury-instructions/proposedadopted/administrative-orders/.
ADM File No. 2021-50
Addition of Rule 2.421 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following addition of Rule 2.421 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective May 1, 2024.
[NEW] Rule 2.421 Notice of Bankruptcy Proceedings
(A) Applicability. This rule applies to all state court actions in which a party is a named debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding under 11 USC 101 et seq.
(B) Party Subject to Bankruptcy Proceeding. Any party in a state court action who is a named debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding must
(1) file a notice of the bankruptcy proceeding in the state court action no later than 3 days after becoming subject to such bankruptcy proceeding, and
(2) serve the notice on all other parties in the state court action as provided in MCR 2.107.
(C) Other Parties. If a party to a state court action learns that another party in such action is a named debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding and notice of the bankruptcy proceeding in subrule (B) has not previously been filed and served by the debtor, then such party may
(1) file a notice of the bankruptcy proceeding in the state court action, and
(2) serve the notice on all other parties in the state court action as provided in MCR 2.107.
(D) Notice Contents. Notice of a bankruptcy proceeding filed under this rule must, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(1) name(s) of the debtor(s) described in subrule (A);
(2) the court name and case number(s) of the bankruptcy proceeding(s); and,
(3) if available, the name, telephone number, physical address, and email address for the debtor’s attorney in the bankruptcy proceeding(s).
(E) Effect of Notice. If a notice is filed under this rule, the court may hold in abeyance any further proceedings and may schedule a status conference to consider the administrative closure of all or a portion of the state court action. To the extent that all or a portion of the state court action is administratively closed under this subrule or otherwise, it may be reopened if, on the motion of a party or on the court’s own initiative, the court determines that the automatic stay has been lifted, removed, or otherwise no longer impairs adjudication of all or a portion of the state court action.
(F) This rule does not abridge, enlarge, or in any way modify existing rights and procedures under federal law, including bankruptcy proceedings under 11 USC 101 et seq.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-50): The addition of MCR 2.421 provides a process for filing a notice of a bankruptcy proceeding that affects a state court action.
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.
ADM File No. 2020-08
Rescission Of Administrative Order No. 2020-17 and Amendment of Rule 4.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, Administrative Order No. 2020-17 is rescinded and the following amendment of Rule 4.201 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective May 1, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 4.201 Summary Proceedings to Recover Possession of Premises
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Summons.
(1) The summons must comply with MCR 2.102, except that it must command the defendant to appear for trial in accord with MCL 600.5735(2), unless by local court rule the provisions of MCL 600.5735(4) have been made applicable. If a court adopts a local court rule under MCL 600.5735(4), both of the following apply:
(a) Pursuant to subrule (G)(1)(b), the defendant must be allowed to appear and orally answer the complaint on the date and time indicated by the summons.
(b) The court must abide by the remaining requirements of this rule.
(2)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(D)-(P) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2020-08): The rescission of AO 2020-17 reflects the Court’s review of the public comments received in this same ADM file regarding prior amendments of MCR 4.201. The amendment of MCR 4.201 derives from AO 2020-17 and ensures that courts with a local court rule under MCL 600.5735(4) implement their local court rule in accordance with the other provisions of MCR 4.201, including the requirement that a defendant be allowed to appear and orally answer the complaint.
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.
ADM File No. 2022-33
Amendment of Rule 4.303 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 4.303 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective May 1, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 4.303 Notice
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Dismissal for Lack of Progress.
(1) On motion of a party or on its own initiative, the court may order that a case in which no progress has been made within 91 days after the last action be dismissed for lack of progress.
(2) The court must serve notice of the proposed dismissal on the parties at least 14 days before the court orders the case dismissed.
(3) A dismissal under this subrule is without prejudice unless the court orders otherwise.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-33): The amendment of MCR 4.303 adds a new subrule (D) to allow courts to dismiss, without prejudice, small claims cases for lack of progress 91 days after the last action and after serving notice of the proposed dismissal.
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.
ADM File No. 2023-06
Retention of the Amendments of Rules 6.001 and 8.119, and the Addition of Rule 6.451 of the Michigan Court Rules
Additional Amendments of Rules 6.451 and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice and an opportunity for comment at a public hearing having been provided, the Court retains the amendment of Rule 6.001 adopted in its order dated March 29, 2023, and effective immediately, Rules 6.451 and 8.119 are amended further as indicated below.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.451 Reinstatement of Convictions Set Aside Without Application
A conviction that was automatically set aside by operation of law under MCL 780.621g must be reinstated by the court only as provided in MCL 780.621h. The court must:
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
An order for reinstatement of a conviction that was improperly or erroneously set aside as provided in MCL 780.621h(2) must advise the individual whose conviction is being reinstated that he or she may object to the reinstatement by requesting a hearing. The request must be filed with the court on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office.
Rule 8.119 Court Records and Reports; Duties of Clerks
(A)-(G) [Unchanged.]
(H) Access to Records. Except as otherwise provided in subrule (F), only case records as defined in subrule (D) are public records, subject to access in accordance with these rules.
(1)-(9) [Unchanged.]
(10) Set Aside Convictions. Access to iInformation on set aside convictions is nonpublic and access is limited to a court of competent jurisdiction, an agency of the judicial branch of state government, the department of corrections, a law enforcement agency, a prosecuting attorney, the attorney general, and the governor upon request and only for the purposes identified in MCL 780.623. Access may also be provided to the individual whose conviction was set aside, that individual’s attorney, and the victim(s) as defined in MCL 780.623. The court must redact all information related to the set aside conviction or convictions before making the case record or a court record available to the public in any format.
(I)-(L) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-06): The amendment of MCR 6.451 clarifies the court’s duties for reinstatement of convictions set aside without an application. The amendment of MCR 8.119 establishes a similar level of access to set aside information contained in court records as MCL 780.623 establishes for accessing set aside information contained in Michigan State Police records.
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.
ADM File No. 2023-06
Amendments of Rules 6.110 And 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendments of Rules 6.110 and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules are adopted, effective July 2, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.110 The Preliminary Examination
(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Return of Examination. Immediately on concluding the examination, the court must certify and transmit to the court before which the defendant is bound to appear the case file, any recognizances received, and a copy of the register of actions.
I. The court need not transmit recordings of any proceedings to the circuit court.
II. If an interested party requests a transcript of a district or municipal court proceeding after the case is bound over, the circuit court shall forward that request to the district or municipal court for transcription as provided in MCR 8.108. The circuit court shall forward this request only if the circuit court case record is publicly accessibleprosecutor’s authorization for a warrant application, the complaint, a copy of the register of actions, the examination return, and any recognizances received.
(H)-(I) [Unchanged.]
(J) Remand. If the circuit court remands the case to the district or municipal court for further proceedings, the circuit court must transmit to the court where the case has been remanded the case file, any recognizances received, and a copy of the register of actions.
I. The circuit court need not transmit recordings of any proceedings to the district or municipal court.
II. If an interested party requests a transcript of a circuit court proceeding after the case is remanded, the district or municipal court shall forward that request to the circuit court for transcription as provided in MCR 8.108. The district or municipal court shall forward this request only if the district or municipal court case record is publicly accessible.
Rule 8.119 Court Records and Reports; Duties of Clerks
(A)-(G) [Unchanged.]
(H) Access to Records. Except as otherwise provided in subrule (F), only case records as defined in subrule (D) are public records, subject to access in accordance with these rules.
(1)-(8) [Unchanged.]
(9) Circuit Court Bindover or Remand. For cases bound over to the circuit court on or after July 2, 2024, all case records and court records maintained by the district or municipal court become nonpublic immediately after entry of the order binding the defendant over to the circuit court. The circuit court case record, which includes the records transmitted under MCR 6.110(G), and court records remain accessible as provided by this rule.
For cases bound over to the circuit court and remanded to the district or municipal court on or after July 2, 2024, all case records and court records maintained by the circuit court become nonpublic immediately after entry of the order to remand. The district or municipal court case record, which includes the records transmitted under MCR 6.110(J), and court records become accessible after an order to remand as provided by this rule.
As used in this subrule, “nonpublic” means that term as defined in MCR 1.109(H)(2).
(I)-(L) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-06): The amendments of MCR 6.110(G) and 8.119(H) require all case and court records maintained by a district or municipal court to become nonpublic immediately after bindover to the circuit court. Similarly, upon remand to the district or municipal court, all case and court records maintained by a circuit court would become nonpublic.
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.
Viviano, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the amendments to MCR 6.110, but I disagree with the addition of MCR 8.119(H)(10). Court records maintained by district and municipal courts after a felony case is bound over to circuit court have always been accessible to the public unless the records are later suppressed under an applicable law.1 I oppose MCR 8.119(H)(10) because it impedes access to court records and imposes an unnecessary burden on court clerks and staff.
The new requirements will make it more difficult to obtain court records that have always been accessible to the public up until now. This Court has a duty to ensure that court records are easily accessible by members of the public. See In re Leopold, 448 US App DC 77, 79 (2020) (“The public’s right of access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law.”). For many Michiganders, local district or municipal courts may be the easiest place to access a court record. See Michigan Manual 2023-2024, p 544 (“The district court is often referred to as ‘The People’s Court,’ because the public has more contact with the district court than with any other court in the state ... ”). I see no good reason to force individuals wishing to access information about a felony case to obtain that information from the circuit court. If the case is public and the local court has the relevant records or information sought, the public should have a right to access it at that court.
MCR 8.119(H)(10) also creates additional work for court clerks and staff by requiring them to make all records nonpublic simply due to the possibility that some cases may later become nonpublic. Circuit court staff will be further burdened because any requests for records of bound-over felonies that could have previously been made in the district or municipal court will now have to be made in the circuit court. It is noteworthy that of the three comments the Court received on this proposal, one was from a district court administrator and the other was from a county clerk. Both highlighted the unnecessary nature of the change and the problems that are likely to result.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the inclusion of MCR 8.119(H)(10) in this set of amendments.
ADM File No. 2024-05
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.306 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.306 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 7.306 Original Proceedings
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) An action for judicial review under MCL 168.46 or MCL 168.845a must be initiated only in the Supreme Court as an original proceeding and in accordance with this rule.
(DC) What to File. Service provided under this subrule must be verified by the clerk. To initiate an original proceeding, a plaintiff must file with the clerk all of the following:
(1) 1 signed copy of a complaint prepared in conformity with MCR 2.111(A) and (B). and entitled, for eExample, titles include:
“[Plaintiff] v [Court of Appeals, Governor [NAME], Board of State Canvassers, Board of Law Examiners, Attorney Discipline Board, Attorney Grievance Commission, or Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission].”
The clerk shall retitle a complaint that is named differently.
(2) 1 signed copy of a brief conforming as nearly as possible to MCR 7.212(B) and (C).;
(3) Pproof that the complaint and brief were served on the defendant, and,
(a) for a complaint filed against the Attorney Discipline Board or Attorney Grievance Commission, on the respondent in the underlying discipline matter;
(b) for purposes of a complaint filed under Const 1963, art 4, § 6(19), service of a copy of the complaint and brief shall be made on any of the following persons:
(I1) the chairperson of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission,;
(II2) the secretary of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, or
(III3) upon an individual designated by the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission or Secretary of State as a person to receive service. Service shall be verified by the Clerk of the Court; and
(c) for purposes of a complaint filed under MCL 168.46, service of a copy of the complaint and brief shall be made on the defendant(s) and all of the following persons if not named as a defendant:
(I) the candidates who were declared the winners of the office of President or Vice President of the United States,
(II) the chairperson of the board of state canvassers,
(III) the attorney general, and
(IV) the secretary of state.
A complaint filed under MCL 168.46 must be filed with the Court within 24 hours after the governor’s certification of the completed recount but no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day before the electors of President and Vice President are required to convene pursuant to MCL 168.47.
(d) for purposes of a complaint filed under MCL 168.845a, service of a copy of the complaint and brief shall be made on the defendant(s) and all of the following persons if not named as a defendant:
(I) the candidates who were declared the winners of the office of President or Vice President of the United States,
(II) the governor,
(III) the attorney general, and
(IV) the secretary of state.
A complaint filed under MCL 168.845a must be filed with the Court within 48 hours after the certification or determination of the results of a presidential election and must name the board of state canvassers as a defendant.
(4) Tthe fees provided by MCR 7.319(C)(1) and MCL 600.1986(1)(a).
Copies of relevant documents, record evidence, or supporting affidavits may be attached as exhibits to the complaint.
(ED) Answer.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) A defendant challenging a certification or ascertainment after recount under MCL 168.46 must file the following with the clerk within 24 hours of the complaint being filed or by 12 p.m. on the day before the electors of President and Vice President are required to convene pursuant to MCL 168.47, whichever is earlier, unless the Court directs otherwise:
(a) 1 signed copy of an answer in conformity with MCR 2.111(C);
(b) 1 signed copy of a supporting brief in conformity with MCR 7.212(B) and (D); and
(c) Proof that a copy of the answer and supporting brief was served on the plaintiff.
(3) A defendant in an action filed under MCL 168.845a must file the following with the clerk within 48 hours after service of the complaint and supporting brief, unless the Court directs otherwise:
(a) 1 signed copy of an answer in conformity with MCR 2.111(C);
(b) 1 signed copy of a supporting brief in conformity with MCR 7.212(B) and (D); and
(c) Proof that a copy of the answer and supporting brief was served on the plaintiff and any intervenors.
(2) [Renumbered as (4) but otherwise unchanged.]
(E) [Relettered as (F) but otherwise unchanged.]
(GF) Reply Brief. 1 signed copy of a reply brief may be filed as provided in MCR 7.305(E). In an action filed under Const 1963, art 4, § 6(19), a reply brief may be filed within 3 days after service of the answer and supporting brief, unless the Court directs otherwise. In an action filed under MCL 168.845a, a reply brief may be filed within 1 day after service of the answer and supporting brief, unless the Court directs otherwise. A plaintiff may not file a reply brief in an action for judicial review under MCL 168.46.
(H) Notice of Intervention and Brief. In an action filed under MCL 168.845a(1), the governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and the winner of the presidential election may intervene by filing a notice of intervention and brief in support of or opposition to the complaint within 48 hours after service of the complaint and supporting brief.
(G)-(I) [Relettered as (I)-(K) but otherwise unchanged.]
(LJ) Decision. The Court may set the case for argument as a calendar case, grant or deny the relief requested, or provide other relief that it deems appropriate, including an order to show cause why the relief sought in the complaint should not be granted. To have conclusive effect in an action for judicial review under MCL 168.46, the Court’s final order must be issued no later than 4 p.m. the day before the electors for President and Vice President of the United States convene under MCL 168.47. To have conclusive effect in an action for judicial review under MCL 168.845a, the Court’s final order must be issued no later than the day before the electors for President and Vice President of the United States convene under MCL 168.47.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-05): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.306 would establish a procedure for two new original actions in the Supreme Court related to presidential elections in conformity with MCL 168.46 (as amended by 2023 PA 269) and MCL 168.845a (as adopted by 2023 PA 255).
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 the state court administrator so they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by July 1, 2024, 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 submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2024-05. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-45
Amendment of Rule 9.131 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 9.131 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective May 1, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 9.131 Investigation of Member or Employee of Board or Commission, or Relative of Member or Employee of Board or Commission; Investigation of Attorney Representing Respondent or Witness; Other Investigations Creating the Possible Appearance of Impropriety; Representation by Member or Employee of Board or Commission
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
D) Other Investigations Creating a Possible Appearance of Impropriety. If the administrator determines that an appearance of impropriety would arise if a request for investigation is handled in the manner prescribed by MCR 9.112(C), the administrator must submit the request for investigation to the Michigan Supreme Court along with a written explanation as to why the administrator believes an appearance of impropriety would arise. If the Court agrees with the administrator’s determination under this subrule, the Court will notify the administrator and direct that the procedures in subrule (A) be followed. If the Court disagrees with the administrator’s determination under this subrule, the Court will return the request for investigation to the administrator for an investigation in accordance with MCR 9.112(C).
(D) [Relettered (E) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-45): The amendment of MCR 9.131 requires that the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) submit to the Supreme Court for review any requests for investigations received that involve allegations of attorney misconduct where the AGC administrator believes that an appearance of impropriety would arise if the AGC handled the investigation.
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.
ADM File No. 2022-30
Amendments of Rules 702 and 804 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendments of Rules 702 and 804 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence are adopted, effective May 1, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a)-(c) [Unchanged.]
d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application ofhas reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Rule 804 Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness
(a) [Unchanged.]
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) if the statement tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability and is offered to exculpate the accused, it must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
(5)-(6) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-30): The amendment of MRE 702 requires the proponent of an expert witness’s testimony to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the factors for admission are satisfied and clarifies that it is the expert’s opinion that must reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case. The amendment of MRE 804(b)(4)(B) requires corroborating circumstances of trustworthiness for any statement against interest that exposes a declarant to criminal liability.
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.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointment of Chief Judge of the 16th District Court
On order of the Court, Hon. Sean P. Kavanagh is appointed as chief judge of the 16th District Court for a term beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, and ending on Dec. 31, 2025.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointment of Chief Judge of the 44th Circuit Court and the 53rd District Court
On order of the Court, Hon. Matthew J. McGivney is appointed as chief judge of the 44th Circuit Court and the 53rd District Court for a term beginning on March 18, 2024, and ending on Dec. 31, 2025.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Assignment of Business Court Judge in the 44th Circuit Court
On order of the Court, effective March 18, 2024, the Hon. Matthew J. McGivney is assigned to serve as a business court judge in the 44th Circuit Court for a term expiring April 1, 2025.
ADM File No. 2024-01
Appointment to the Judicial Education Board
On order of the Court, pursuant to Mich CJE R 3 and effective immediately, Hon. Cynthia M. Ward is appointed to the Judicial Education Board to fill the remainder of a term ending on Dec. 31, 2025.