Divorce; Objection to a referee’s recommendation; MCL 552.507(4); Timeliness; “Made available”; MCR 3.215(E)(1)(c); Service in domestic relations cases; MCR 3.203; MCR 2.107(C)(3); Friend of the Court (FOC)

The court held that because plaintiff-ex-wife’s objection to the referee recommendation “was untimely, the trial court did not err by refusing to hold a de novo hearing.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order denying her objection to the recommendation. The issues that she raised on appeal concerned “how to properly calculate filing deadlines. At issue is an FOC recommendation that was mailed on” 6/16/23. On 7/10/23, she “faxed the trial court an objection to this recommendation.” At an 8/11/23 hearing, the trial court ruled that her “objection was untimely and accordingly declined to consider it.” On appeal, plaintiff contended that it “erred when it determined that her objection was untimely.” The court concluded that, consistent with the applicable “rules, the FOC recommendation issued in this case stated that a party must file any objection to the recommendation ‘within 21 days from the date this order is mailed.’ The FOC recommendation’s certificate of mailing shows that it was mailed on” 6/16/23. This gave plaintiff until 7/7/23 to file her objection. Consequently, her “objection—which was, at the earliest, filed on [7/10/23]—was untimely.”