News & Notices

From the Michigan Supreme Court January 2023

 

Michigan Bar Journal

 

ADM File No. 2022-01
Appointment of Chief Judge of the 19th District Court

On order of the Court, effective Jan. 1, 2023, Hon. Sam A. Salamey is appointed chief judge of the 19th District Court for the remainder of a term ending Dec. 31, 2023.

ADM File No. 2022-01
Appointment of Chief Judge of the 54B District Court

On order of the Court, effective immediately, Hon. Molly Hennessey Greenwalt is appointed chief judge of the 54B District Court for the remainder of a term ending Dec. 31, 2023.

ADM File No. 2002-37
ADM File No. 2017-28
Retention of the May 11, 2022 Amendments of Rules 1.109 and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules, with Further Amendments as Indicated

By order dated May 11, 2022, the Court adopted amendments of Rules 1.109 and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules. Notice and an opportunity for public comment having been provided, effective immediately, the amendments of Rules 1.109 and 8.119 are retained, with further amendment of Rule 1.109 appearing in underlining and/or strikethrough below.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover]

Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access

(A)-(C) [Unchanged]

(D) Filing Standards.

(1)-(8) [Unchanged]

(9) Personal Identifying Information.

(a) [Unchanged.]

(b) Filing, Accessing, and Serving Personal Identifying Information.

(i)-(ii) [Unchanged.]

(iii) Except as otherwise provided by these rules, if a party is required to include protected personal identifying information in a public document filed with the court, the party shall file the document with the protected personal identifying information redacted, along with a personal identifying information form approved by the State Court Administrative Office under subrule (i). The personal identifying information form must identify each item of redacted information and specify an appropriate reference that uniquely corresponds to each item of redacted information listed. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers listed in the personal identifying information form will be understood to refer to the corresponding complete identifier. A party may amend the personal identifying information form as of right. Fields for protected personal identifying information may be included in SCAO-approved court forms, and the information will be protected in the form and manner established by the State Court Administrative Office.

Unredacted protected personal identifying information may be included on Uniform Law Citations filed with the court and on proposed orders submittedpresented to the court. If a party submits to the court a proposed order that is required to contain unredacted protected personal identifying information once issued by the court, the party shall not attach the proposed order to another document.

(iv)-(vii) [Unchanged.]

(c)-(e) [Unchanged.]

(10) [Unchanged.]

(E)-(H) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File Nos. 2002-37 and 2017-28): The amendments of MCR 1.109 and MCR 8.119 aid in protecting personal identifying information included in citations, proposed orders, and public documents filed with or submitted to the court before April 1, 2022, the effective date of the Court’s orders amending rules regarding personal identifying information.

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. 2022-09
Amendment of Rule 3.703 of the Michigan Court Rules

On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 3.703 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]

Rule 3.703 Commencing a Personal Protection Action

(A) Filing. A personal protection action is an independent action commenced by filing a petition with a court. Where e-filing is implemented, a partially-completed personal protection order must be prepared on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office and submitted at the same time as the petition. The petitioner, or an individual who is assisting the petitioner under MCL 600.2950b(4), shall complete in the form only the case caption and the known fields with identifying information, including protected personal identifying information of the respondent; however, at a minimum the race, sex, and date of birth or age of the respondent must be provided for LEIN entry. The personal identifying information form required by MCR 1.109(D)(9)(b)(iii) shall not be filed under this rule. There are no fees for filing a personal protection action, and no summons is issued. A personal protection action may not be commenced by filing a motion in an existing case or by joining a claim to an action.

(B)-(G) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-09): The amendment of MCR 3.703 is necessary for design and implementation of the statewide electronic-filing system. This amendment provides the court with necessary protected personal identifying information in an appropriate format and reduces workload preparing personal protection orders.

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. 2021-48
Amendment of Rule 6.502 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 6.502 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]

Rule 6.502 Motion for Relief from Judgment

(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]

(G) Successive Motions.

(1) [Unchanged.]

(2) A defendant may file a second or subsequent motion based on any of the following:

(a) a retroactive change in law that occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment was filed,

(b) or a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion was filed, or.

(c) a final court order vacating one or more of the defendant’s convictions either described in the judgment from which the defendant is seeking relief or upon which the judgment was based.

The clerk shall refer a successive motion to the judge to whom the case is assigned for a determination whether the motion is within one of the exceptions.

The court may waive the provisions of this rule if it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime. For motions filed under both (G)(1) and (G)(2), the court shall enter an appropriate order disposing of the motion.

(3) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-48): The amendment of MCR 6.502 codifies a third exception to the “one and only one motion” rule based on a final court order vacating one or more of a defendant’s convictions either described in the judgment or upon which the judgment was based.

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. 2021-39
Amendment of Rule 7.215 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 7.215 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]

Rule 7.215 Opinions, Orders, Judgments, and Final Process for Court of Appeals

(A)-(E) [Unchanged.]

(F) Execution and Enforcement.

(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]

(3) Reissuance of Judgment or Order. Any party may request that an opinion or order be reissued with a new entry date by filing a letter with the Court of Appeals setting forth facts showing that the clerk or attorney failed to send the judgment or order as provided in subrule (E)(2). The Court of Appeals will not reissue the opinion or order unless persuaded that it was not promptly sent as required and that the failure resulted in the party being precluded from timely filing a motion for reconsideration or an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court. Such request will be submitted to the Chief Judge for administrative decision, and the decision will be communicated by letter from the clerk.

(G)-(J) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-39): The amendment of MCR 7.215 codifies the Court of Appeals’ practice for reissuing opinions and orders.

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. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2001-6, the following members are reappointed to the Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions for terms beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Matthew Aneese
  • Amy Johnston
  • Hon. Annette Jurkiewicz-Berry
  • Hon. Charles LaSata
  • Emily Thomas
  • Daniel Schulte

In addition, the Court appoints the following members for terms beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Adam Winn
  • Richard J. Suhrheinrich
  • Hon. Christopher P. Yates

ADM File No. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-13, the following members are reappointed to the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions for terms beginning on Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Hon. Michael C. Brown
  • Hon. Terry L. Clark
  • Michael J. McCarthy
  • Michael L. Mittlestat
  • Jerome Sabbota

The Court further appoints the following members for terms beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Hon. Margaret M. Van Houten
  • Andrea S. Krause

In addition, pursuant to Administrative Order 2001-6 and effective immediately, Andrea Crumback is appointed as reporter of the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions.

ADM File No. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Foreign Language Board of Review

On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.127(A), the following members are reappointed to the Foreign Language Board of Review for terms beginning Jan. 1, 2023 and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Hon. Tiffany A. Ankley (district court judge)
  • George Strander (court administrator)
  • Evelyn Villarruel (certified interpreter)

ADM File No. 2022-18
Amendment of IOP 9.207(B)-13 and Addition of IOPs 9.202(G)-6, 9.207(B)-14, and 9.207(B)-15 for the Judicial Tenure Commission

On order of the Court, the following amendment and additions of Internal Operating Procedures for the Judicial Tenure Commission are adopted, effective immediately.

[NEW] IOP 9.202(G)-6 Complaints about Commission Staff. The Commission occasionally receives complaints about staff or the executive director. In order to ensure that complaints about staff are resolved fairly and expeditiously, they will be handled as follows:

Complaints about staff other than the executive director. The executive director will promptly review all complaints about members of the staff other than the executive director. After reviewing the complaint, the executive director will take such action as they determine to be appropriate. Before taking any disciplinary action, the executive director will discuss the complaint with the staff member.

Complaints about executive director. Complaints about the executive director will be provided to the Commission chairperson and vice-chairperson. The chairperson and vice-chairperson will promptly review each complaint. If it appears that some investigation or other action may be appropriate, the chairperson or vice-chairperson will provide the complaint to the entire Commission. The Commission will then decide, in executive session, whether to select three members of the Commission to act as a subcommittee to investigate the complaint and recommend a resolution. If the subcommittee will be recommending disciplinary action, the executive director should be given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The Commission will then vote, in executive session, whether to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation or take some other action.

IOP 9.207(B)-13 — Prompt Resolution of Complaints. The Commission recognizes that the public and judiciary have a strong interest in prompt and fair resolution of complaints alleging a judge has committed misconduct. The Commission’s goal is to

  • review all complaints expeditiously and impartially;
  • fairly and thoroughly investigate those that warrant further examination;
  • accurately and impartially determine the merits of each complaint; and
  • arrive at a just resolution as quickly as practicable.

[NEW] IOP 9.207(B)-14 — Practice Regarding Investigation. It is in the interest of justice and the interest of the Commission to be aware of exculpatory information prior to recommending any action other than dismissal of the RFI. To that end, after the Commission approves a full investigation, staff will make reasonable efforts to obtain all information that appears useful to determining whether there is misconduct, in order to ensure that the investigation is both thorough and fair. If a respondent asks staff to obtain and review information that appears both relevant and useful to determining whether there is misconduct, staff will take such steps as are appropriate to obtain that information unless there are circumstances that make it unreasonable to do so.

[NEW] IOP 9.207(B)-15 — Practice Regarding Discovery. MCR 9.232(A) requires disciplinary counsel to provide the following to respondents, at least 21 days before a public hearing is scheduled to begin: names and addresses of all witnesses that disciplinary counsel intends to call at the hearing; copies of statements and affidavits given by disciplinary counsel’s proposed witnesses; copies of all exhibits that disciplinary counsel intends to introduce; and copies of all exculpatory information in disciplinary counsel’s possession.

It is in the Commission’s interest that public charges against a respondent be resolved fairly and on the basis of all relevant evidence. To that end:

  • Unless there are circumstances that make it unreasonable to do so, disciplinary counsel will endeavor to provide discovery to a respondent as soon as reasonably feasible after the Commission files a public complaint, but no later than the time limit in MCR 9.232(A).
  • Unless circumstances make it unreasonable to do so, disciplinary counsel will make available to respondent all witness statements, without regard to whether disciplinary counsel intends to call the witness, and all evidence that is a part of the investigation, without regard to whether disciplinary counsel intends to introduce the evidence. In that way, disciplinary counsel will not be in the position of having to speculate as to what a respondent may consider to be “exculpatory.”

ADM File No. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Judicial Education Board

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-7, Hon. Christopher M. Murray is reappointed as chair, and Hon. Kathleen M. Brickley is reappointed as vice-chair to the Judicial Education Board for terms ending Dec. 31, 2023.

ADM File No. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Justice for All Commission

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-1, the following members are reappointed to the Justice for All Commission for terms commencing on Jan. 1, 2023, and ending on Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Bonsitu Kitaba (on behalf of the State Planning Body)
  • Ashley Lowe (on behalf of the Legal Services Association of Michigan)
  • Yusef Shakur (on behalf of the Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion)
  • Hon. Cynthia Ward (on behalf of the Association of Black Judges)

In addition, James Heath (SBM president) is appointed for a term commencing on Jan. 1, 2023, and ending on Dec. 31, 2023; Sandra Vanderhyde (on behalf of court administrators/probate registers) is appointed for a term beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending on Dec. 31, 2024; and James A. Bacarella (on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan) is appointed for a term commencing on Jan. 1, 2023, and ending on Dec. 31, 2025.

ADM File No. 2022-01
Assignment of Business Court Judge in the 9th Circuit Court (Kalamazoo County)

On order of the Court, effective Jan. 1, 2023, the Honorable Curtis J. Bell is assigned to serve as a business court judge in the 9th Circuit Court for a term expiring April 1, 2025.

ADM File No. 2022-01
Supreme Court Appointments to the Michigan Judicial Council

On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.128, the following members are reappointed to the Michigan Judicial Council for terms beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025:

  • Hon. William A. Baillargeon (at-large judge)
  • Hon. Aaron J. Gauthier (at-large judge)
  • James W. Heath (attorney)
  • Sheryl M. Kubiak (member of the public)
  • James A. McGrail (court administrator/probate register)
  • Hon. Melissa L. Pope (Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum)
  • Angela S. Tripp (Justice for All Commission member)

In addition, the Court appoints Justice Megan Cavanagh to the Michigan Judicial Council for a term beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and ending Dec. 31, 2025.

ADM File No. 2022-53
Amendment of Local Court Rule 2.119 for the Oakland County Circuit Court

On order of the Court, the following amendment to Local Court Rule 2.119 of the Oakland County Circuit Court is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]

Rule 2.119 Motion Practice

(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]

(C) Appearance at the Hearing. If counsel for the moving party on a motion praeciped for hearing does not check in with the court clerk by 9:30 a.m., the court may dismiss the motion praecipe on its own motion or upon request of counsel for the opposing party.

If counsel for the opposing party in a motion praeciped for hearing does not check in with the clerk by 9:30 a.m., upon request of the moving party the clerk shall call the motion hearing. If appropriate, the court shall grant the relief requested.

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-53): The amendment of Oakland LCR 2.119 is necessary because its inclusion causes the court unnecessary delays.

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. 2022-37
Proposed Administrative Order No. 2022-XProposed Creation of a Vendor-Neutral Citation System

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an administrative order that would create a vendor-neutral citation system for Michigan appellate decisions. 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 notice and agendas for public hearings 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.

Administrative Order No. 2022-X — Creation of a Vendor-Neutral Citation System

Traditional appellate opinion citations are prescribed by commercial vendors and assume that every person has access to the vendors’ print publications. Vendor-neutral citations, also known as public-domain citations, are different in that they do not depend on a proprietary publication. Vendor-neutral citations are also available immediately upon release of a court opinion or order, eliminating the waiting period for a permanent citation. In early 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) and Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) formed an internal workgroup to consider whether Michigan should adopt vendor-neutral citations, and if so, what those citations would look like. That workgroup supported the idea of using citations that are tied to the Courts’ integrated docketing systems. Adoption of vendor-neutral citations has no bearing on the continued publication of the Michigan Reports and Michigan Appeals Reports.

Under this system, each citation includes the year of decision, the Court abbreviation (“MI” for the Michigan Supreme Court and “MI App” for the Court of Appeals), and a unique identifier consisting of the docket number and the event number at which the opinion or order was docketed. The event number can be found on the Courts’ website. To find the event number, go to the case search page, search for the case by name or docket number, click on the case name to view the case information page, and scroll down to the list of docketed events; the event numbers are listed to the right of the event dates. For Court of Appeals opinions, the event number to be used for the citation is the event number used to docket the lead opinion, even if the reference is to a minority opinion. As is standard in Michigan appellate decisions, when citing a minority opinion a parenthetical should be included that indicates the author and the type of minority opinion (e.g., concurring in part; dissenting). An unpublished Court of Appeals opinion or order must also have “-U” appended to the Court abbreviation. Pinpoint citations are based on the page numbers of the opinion or order as released or revised by the Court. The following list provides a description of each citation type and an example:

MSC Opinion
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
Meyers v Rieck, 2022 MI 162094-77.

MSC Opinion with Pinpoint Reference
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI [Docket No.]-[Event No.], p [Page No.].

Example:
Meyers v Rieck, 2022 MI 162094-77, p 11.

MSC Order
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
People v Christian, 2021 MI 162354-72.

COA Published Opinion
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI App [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
Campbell v Mich Dep’t of Treasury, 2020 MI App 350248-19.

COA Dissenting/Concurring Opinion
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI App [Docket No.]-[Event No.] ([Judge’s Last Name], [Judicial Position Indicator], [Opinion Type]).

Example:
In re Baby Boy Doe, 2021 MI App 353796-35 (Ronayne Krause, P.J., dissenting).

COA Unpublished Opinion
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI App-U [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
People v Edwards, 2020 MI App-U 348807-64.

COA Published Order
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI App [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
In re AST, 2022 MI App 362349-7.

COA Unpublished Order
Citation description:
[Case Caption], [Year] MI App-U [Docket No.]-[Event No.].

Example:
People v Peeler, 2021 MI App-U 357754-22.

Therefore, on order of the Court, this vendor-neutral citation system is adopted for Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court opinions and orders beginning [Date]. After that date, the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals must assign a vendor-neutral citation to their opinions and orders using this system.

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-37): This administrative order would create a vendor-neutral citation system for Michigan appellate decisions. This new system would allow for permanent citations to be available immediately upon release of a court opinion or order, eliminating the waiting period for a permanent citation.

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 April 1, 2023 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. 2022-37. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.