MSC orders amendments to summary disposition, default judgment rules

The Michigan Supreme Court approved a slew of court rule amendments on October 3. The amendments were made to MCR 3.979, MCR 2.116, MCR 2.603  and MCR 9.113(A).

Perhaps the two with the widest effect on the industry are the changes to MCR 2.116 and 2. 603. Both amendments were discussed in the most recent administrative conference on September 27.

The amended MCR 2.603 allows for entry of a default judgment if “the damages amount requested isn’t greater than the amount stated in the complaint.”

The amended MCR 2.116 adds forum selection agreement as grounds for summary disposition under subsection (C)(7).

The remaining two amendments affect juvenile guardianships and grievance procedure. MCR 3.979 was changed to allow continuing court jurisdiction over a guardianship if the Department of Human Services continues to provide subsides after a ward reaches the age of 18, and to require annual review hearings in such cases.

MCR 9.113 was amended to give the grievance administrator “discretion to withhold all or part of respondent’s answer and any supporting documents from the person who filed the request for investigation.” [From staff comment].

Advertisements

MSC appoints chief judge, issues rule changes and proposals

In recent orders released by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court:

The Court amended MCR 6.001 and adopted new MCR 6.202. According to the staff comment accompanying the order, “The revision of MCR 6.001 provides a cross reference to MCR 6.202, a new rule adopted in this order. MCR 6.202 incorporates a ‘notice and demand’ procedure into the Michigan Court Rules with regard to forensic reports. Under the rule, a party could seek to admit a forensic report as evidence if notice requirements are met and no objection is filed. If a party objects to admission of the report, the analyst would be required to testify. The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.”

The Court approved LCR 3.204 of the Wayne County Circuit Court. According to the staff comment accompanying the order, “These local court rule provisions of the 3rd Circuit Court have been adopted in an effort to better process cases filed with a case-type suffix of ‘DC.’ Subrule (A) requires the use of uniform Child Custody Cover Sheets when an action is filed in a child custody dispute. Subrule (B) requires the use of the most recent local Court Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act forms or the equivalent most recent State Court Administrative Office forms in an action seeking registration, enforcement, or modification of another state’s or a foreign country’s child custody determination. The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.”

The Court proposed amendments to three Michigan Court Rules.

  • A proposed amendment of MCR 3.616, according to the staff comment, “would provide that the files of a young adult foster care youth are confidential, but may be accessed by the youth and by DHS. The proposal further would eliminate the requirement that the petition and order be served on the previous court in which the youth’s child protection case was disposed because the case is no longer active. This order also corrects numbering of subsection (F)(2)(i)-(iv) so that the subsections are labeled with letters (a)-(c). The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.”
  • A proposed amendment of MCR 3.925 “would clarify rules and procedures for retention and destruction of various records in juvenile cases,” according to the non-authoritative staff comment.
  • The proposed amendment of MCR 3.976, according the staff comment, “would require a court to indicate on the record the reason that no petition for termination of parental rights need be filed, thus providing a record to future auditors who review the state’s foster care program that the court explicitly chose the option. The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.”

The Court also extended the public comment period for proposed MCR 1.111 and MCR 8.127. Interested parties have until Nov. 1 to comment on two separate proposed rules that would create a certification and discipline program for court interpreters.