FOCUS: FY2012 Judiciary & Corrections Budgets Pass the Senate
On April 26, the Senate passed SB 173, the appropriations bill for the corrections Budget, with a vote of 23-15.
On April 27, the Senate passed SB 180, the FY2012 appropriations bill for the judiciary budget by a vote of 26-12. Among other things, the budget anticipates the elimination of six trial court judges and decreasing the number of Court of Appeals judges to 26. The bill also expresses legislative intent to support a legal self-help website and centers. The bill was referred to the House Appropriations Committee. The current proposal for the FY2012 judiciary budget being contemplated by the House, HB 4523, contains the same provisions.
In the Capitol
Committee Meetings of Interest for the Week of 5/2
5/3 Senate Judiciary
Agenda: SB 137 Require policy prohibiting harassment and bullying at school; SB 281 Provide immunity from liability for slip and falls in bowling centers under certain circumstances; SR 34 A resolution to memorialize the United States Congress to take immediate steps to provide funding to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the cleanup of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories seized by state and local law enforcement; HB 4321 Require salary to be placed in escrow account during teacher's suspension under tenure act; HB 4167 Include school bus zones in sentencing guidelines for moving violation in a work zone causing death; HB 4168 Provide for increased penalties moving violations in a school bus zone; And any other business to come properly before the committee.
5/5 House Judiciary
Agenda: HB 4364 Restrict adverse possession; HB 4403 Ensure continued eligibility for jury service individuals who fail to return jury questionnaires; HB 4565 Prohibit and establish penalties for possession of certain MDPV.
Real Property Law Section Position on HB 4364: Oppose
SBM Position on HB 4403: Support
Complete Committee Meeting List
New Public Acts
Legislation Introduced 4/26–4/28
View all bills introduced 4/26–4/28
Of Interest to the Legal Community
SB 346 Criminal procedure; DNA; procedure for collection of DNA samples from incarcerated individuals; provide for. Amends sec. 33d of 1953 PA 232 (MCL 791.233d).
HB 4590 Civil procedure; small claims; limitation on recovery amount in small claims suits; revise. Amends sec. 8401 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.8401).
At the Bar
SBM President Calls on Legal Community to Highlight our Heritage on Law Day
Senators' Deal Helps Clear Logjam for Judiciary
(Washington Times, 5/1/11)
Latest Developments on Gov. Snyder's Education Reforms, Business Tax Cut, and Pension Tax
Snyder's Tax Plan Squeaks by in House, Faces Fight in Senate
(Detroit Free Press, 4/29/11)
Michigan House OKs Business Tax Cut, New Tax on Pensions
(Lansing State Journal, 4/29/11)
Snyder Seeks Big Changes in Education Proposal
(Lansing State Journal, 4/28/11)
Michigan Officials Detail Tax Amnesty Campaign
(Lansing State Journal, 4/26/11)
In the Hall of Justice
Attorney General's Request to Remove Lansing Judge to be Heard by Michigan Supreme Court in Oral Arguments This Week
The Michigan Supreme Court will hold a public administrative hearing on Wednesday, May 11, 2011. The hearing will begin promptly at 9:30 a.m. To reserve a place on the agenda, please notify the Office of the Clerk of the Court in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or by e-mail at MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov, no later than Monday, May 9, 2011.
2008-18 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.501 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.501(B) in Alternative A would require a change in circumstances to have occurred that would allow a party to file a supplemental motion for certification of a class within 21 days of the party's knowledge of the changed circumstances. The proposed amendment also would allow a party to file a motion for revocation or amendment of the certification. The court as well would be allowed to consider supplemental motions to recertify and revoke or amend the certification. The proposed amendment of MCR 3.501(B) in Alternative B would clarify that only one motion for certification may be brought, and that once granted, the certification may be amended or revoked.
SBM Position: Support Alternative A with Amendments
2008-28 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.005 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment would revise MCR 6.005(H) to clarify that appointed defense counsel in a criminal proceeding either must file a substantive response to a prosecutor's application for interlocutory appeal or notify the Court of Appeals that the lawyer intends not to submit a pleading.
SBM Position: Oppose
2009-20 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan and Rule 8 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
The proposed amendment of SBR 3(E), submitted by the State Bar of Michigan, would clarify that an out-of-state attorney who voluntarily resigned from the Michigan bar would not be required to retake the Michigan Bar Examination if the person meets the criteria for admission without examination under Rule 5 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners. A similar change also would be made in SBR 3(F) regarding emeritus members. Finally, Rule 8 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners would be amended to reflect that resigned or emeritus members who seek readmission are covered under Rule 8, which allows for recertification.
SBM Position: Support
2009-29 Proposed Amendment of Rule 5.208 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposed amendment of MCR 5.208(A) would remove the requirement to list a decedent's last known address on the Notice to Creditors form. The proposed revision has been published for comment because of a concern that providing such information and publishing it in a newspaper might identify a location where a surviving spouse may be living and may unnecessarily place such a person at risk of harm.
SBM Position: Support
2010-05 Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.112, 7.206, and 7.213 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.112 and MCR 7.206 were submitted by the Legislative Commission on Statutory Mandates as a way to increase the efficiency with which Headlee actions are considered and disposed in Michigan courts, and to regularize the procedures that relate to Headlee proceedings. The proposed amendment of MCR 7.213 was added to the proposal as a corollary to proposed MCR 7.206 to clarify the prioritization of cases.
SBM Position: Oppose