ADM File No. 2016-10
Amendment of Rule 2.002 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 2.002 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining
and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 2.002 Waiver of Fees for Indigent Persons
(A) Applicability and Scope.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) Except as provided in subrule (I), for the purpose of this rule “fees” applies only to fees required by MCL 600.857, MCL 600.878, MCL 600.880, MCL 600.880a, MCL 600.880b, MCL 600.880c, MCL 600.1027, MCL 600.1986, MCL 600.2529, MCL 600.5756, MCL 600.8371, MCL 600.8420, MCL 700.2517, MCL 700.5104, and MCL 722.717.
(3)-(6) [Unchanged.]
(B)-(L) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2016-10): The amendment of MCR 2.002 clarifies that fees charged for transcripts in probate cases are waivable under the rule as authorized in MCL 600.880d.
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. 2023-12
Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.602 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rule 3.602 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 3.602 Arbitration
Applicability of Rule. Courts shall have all powers described in MCL 691.1681 et seq., or reasonably related thereto, for arbitrations governed by that statute. Unless otherwise provided by statute, an action or proceeding commenced on or after July 1, 2013, is governed by MCL 691.1681 et seq., and not this rule. The remainder of this rule applies to all other forms of arbitration, in the absence of contradictory provisions in the arbitration agreement or limitations imposed by statute, including MCL 691.1683(2).
(B)-(N) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-12): The proposed amendment of MCR 3.602(A) would clarify the applicability of MCR 3.602 and the Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act, MCL 691.1681 et seq.
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 May 1, 2025, 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. 2023-12. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-34
Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.991 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.991 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 3.991 Review of Referee Recommendations
(A) General.
(1) Before signing an order based on a referee’s recommended findings and conclusions, a judge of the court mustshall review the recommendations if requested by a party in the manner provided by subrule (B). The parties may waive judicial review of the referee’s recommendation by consenting in writing to immediate entry of the order.
(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) ANothing in this rule prohibits a judge must notfrom reviewing a referee’s recommendation before the expiration of the time for requesting review unless the parties waived judicial review as provided in subrule (A)(1) or the court finds good cause as stated in a written orderand entering an appropriate order. 2
(4) After the entry of an order under this subrule (A)(3), a request for review may not be filed. Reconsideration of the order is by motion for rehearing under MCR 3.992.
(B) (B)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Prompt Review; No Party Appearance Required. Absent good cause for delay, the judge mustshall consider the request within 21 days after it is filed if the minor is in placement or detention. The judge need not schedule a hearing to rule on a request for review of a referee’s recommendations.
(E)-(G) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-34): The proposed amendment of MCR 3.991 would clarify the process for judicial reviews of referee recommendations in juvenile cases by allowing the parties to waive judicial review, limiting a judge’s ability to conduct an early review, and requiring a judge to conduct a requested review in all cases within 21 days of the request.
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 May 1, 2025 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. 2022-34. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2025-01
Appointments to the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2014-12, Hon. Patrick J. Conlin Jr. and Hon. Steven Paciorka are appointed to the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum for partial terms effective immediately and ending on July 1, 2026.