The circuit court’s appellate jurisdiction; MCR 4.201(N)(2); MCR 7.104(A) & (B); Requirement that the appellant pay $150 to the court clerk before filing a claim of appeal; MCL 600.2529(1)(b); MCR 8.119(C); Whether defendant should have been granted a 14-day window to rectify defense counsel’s mistake under MCR 7.113(A)(1) & (2); Whether MCL 600.2331 required the circuit court to allow defendant to perfect its claim of appeal; Mandatory e-filing & the new e-filing rules; MCR 1.109(G)(5)(a)(ii), (b), & (c); Filing defined; MCR 7.202(4); Administrative Order 2011-4 (AO 2011-4); Case law on e-filing & notices of appeal; Farzana K v. Indiana Dep’t of Educ. (7th Cir.); Vince v. Rock Cnty., WI (7th Cir.); The MCRs mechanism for rectifying mistakes as to the untimely filing of an appeal to the circuit court; MCR 7.105(G)(1); Potential confusion warranting relief; Allied Elec. Supply Co., Inc. v. Tenaglia

Concluding that, in light of the unique facts of the case, the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing defendant-commercial lease tenant’s appeal from a district court ruling, the court reversed and remanded to the circuit court. Plaintiff-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against defendant after a dispute arose over the rent due, and successfully moved for partial summary disposition. It was “undisputed that defense counsel timely submitted a claim of appeal via e-filing on” the day it was due. But because of a “submission error, clicking on the wrong box in selecting a case type, he was not prompted to pay the fee and, the following day, the circuit court’s Clerk rejected his claim of appeal for filing because it failed to include a case code and was not accompanied by the requisite filing fee.” It was also undisputed that defendant actually filed a claim of appeal one day later, which satisfied the statutes and MCRs apart from being untimely. The court noted that “the e-filing system is a work in progress and continues to develop. One of its anticipated future improvements is providing the participating courts with the capability to edit a filing.” Consistent with its reading of AO 2011-4, the court found that the circuit court abused its discretion here. If defense counsel “had had the option of filing his appellate paperwork by actually handing it over to the Clerk, she would have asked him about the appropriate case-code type or affixed it herself, she would have requested the $150 fee, and, then, she would have time-stamped and filed the claim of appeal.” But the court cautioned counsel that it was “his responsibility to ensure that the document was received. He should have been alerted to the possibility of misfiling by the email indicating that he had filed a miscellaneous motion and further recognized that he had neither been prompted to pay, nor paid, the requisite filing fee.” The court also noted that MCR 7.105(G)(1) provides “a specific mechanism for rectifying mistakes regarding the untimely filing of an appeal to the circuit court.” It concluded that, given “the circumstances—a failed, but timely e-filing of a claim of appeal, notice of the deficiency after time to correct it had expired, and, then, a quick, but untimely, e-filing of a claim of appeal—the circuit court should have granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration, exercised its power to treat [the] untimely July 9th claim as a delayed application, and granted it.”