The jurisdiction of the circuit courts & the Court of Claims; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13; The Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.101 et seq.); MCL 600.605; Prime Time Int’l Distrib., Inc. v. Department of Treasury; The Court of Claims Act (MCL 600.6401 et seq.); MCL 600.6419; Claim for monetary relief against a university; Fox v. Board of Regents of Univ. of MI; Attica Hydraulic Exch. v. Seslar; MCL 500.3112; Miller v. Citizens Ins. Co.; Principle that a court may not make an adjudication affecting the rights of a person or entity not a party to the case; Shouneyia v. Shouneyia; Spurling v. Battista; University of Michigan (U of M)

The court held that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to enter orders affecting appellant-Regents of the U of M because the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction as to claims for monetary relief against it. Thus, the court vacated the circuit court’s orders granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce a charging lien and compel the remittance of attorney fees to his counsel and denying relief from judgment and/or a stay of enforcement. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and treated for his injuries “by a number of medical providers, including U of M.” He sued his no-fault insurer, defendant-Protective, for no-fault benefits. “Protective apparently paid the bills for services submitted by U of M within a short time after the claims” for them were submitted. Plaintiff contended that U of M received payment due to his counsel’s efforts and thus, argued “that his counsel was entitled to 1/3 of the amount recovered for U of M.” Agreeing, the circuit court “ordered U of M to remit attorney fees in the amount of $14,708.08 to plaintiff’s attorney.” On appeal, the court determined that his claim was “essentially one for monetary relief.” It noted that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled long ago “that circuit courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain claims against” U of M’s governing body given that such jurisdiction is vested in the Court of Claims by statute. Thus, “the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s demand for attorney fees from U of M and the circuit court erred when it entered the orders that affected U of M’s rights in this case.” As to plaintiff’s reliance on Attica and MCL 500.3112, Attica was decided before the Court of Claims Act was amended. The amended “Act vested the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction for claims against a state agency involving a demand for monetary relief.” The prior Act did not contain the same language. The court held that an “attorney fee award is a demand for monetary relief and is thus now subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.” Plaintiff’s argument as to MCL 500.3112 did not account for the Supreme Court’s order in Miller, where it stated that the statute “does not encompass an award of attorney fees to an insured’s counsel.” Finally, the court noted that the circuit court did not have “the authority to enter orders and judgments affecting appellant’s rights because appellant was not a party in this case.”