In re Lapeer County Clerk

• Decision Date: 22 July 2003
• Docket Number: Docket No. 121400, Calendar No. 12.
• Citation: 469 Mich. 146,665 N.W.2d 452
• Parties: In re LAPEER COUNTY CLERK. Lapeer County Clerk, Plaintiff, v. Lapeer Circuit Court, Defendant, and County of Lapeer, Intervening Defendant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

665 N.W.2d 452

469 Mich. 146

In re LAPEER COUNTY CLERK.

Lapeer County Clerk, Plaintiff, v. Lapeer Circuit Court, Defendant, and County of Lapeer, Intervening Defendant.

Docket No. 121400, Calendar No. 12.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued December 11, 2002.

Decided July 22, 2003.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. by Michael J. Hodge, Robert A. LeFevre, and Polly Ann Synk, Lansing, for plaintiff.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Deborah Ann Devine, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, for defendant.

Lange & Cholack, P.C. by Craig W. Lange, Eric W. Cholack, Barbara F. Doolittle, and Tara R. Schemansky, Troy, for intervening defendant Lapeer County.

CORRIGAN, C.J.

The Lapeer County Clerk has filed a complaint for superintending control pursuant to MCR 3.302. We are called to determine whether Lapeer Circuit Court Local Administrative Order No. 2002-01 (LAO 2002-01)¹ impermissibly assigns duties of the county clerk to the staff of the family division of the circuit court. We note, however, that a new plan for the operation of the family division of the circuit court must be agreed upon by July 1, 2003. See Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2003-2. This administrative order requires that the clerk be given the opportunity to participate in the development of the plan provisions for managing court records, and the clerk may file a statement of concurrence or disagreement with the records-management portion of the plan. The order also calls for mediation of disagreements at the Supreme Court's direction. Because LAO 2002-01 is no longer the operative plan, having expired on July 1, 2003, we decline to comment on it specifically, but we issue this opinion pursuant to our rulemaking authority, Const. 1963, art. 6, § 5, to provide guidance to courts as they craft future administrative orders. The complaint for superintending control is dismissed.

After careful review of the Constitution, we conclude that the clerk of the court must have the care and custody of the court records. Further, the circuit court clerk is to perform ministerial duties that are noncustodial as required by the court.

Because a clerk's care and custody function is contemplated by Const. 1963, art. 6, § 14, as evidenced by our historical understanding of that provision, the circuit court cannot interfere with the circuit court clerk's constitutional obligation to perform that function. The custodial function, however, is a limited one. In acting as custodian of the records, the clerk is responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the records. Having care and custody of the records, however, does not imply ownership of the records. Rather, the clerk's custodial function entails safeguarding the records on behalf of the circuit court, and making those records available to their owner, which is the circuit court. The clerk is also obligated to make the records available to the public, when appropriate.

Beyond having the care and custody of the court's records, the circuit court clerk is also to perform noncustodial ministerial duties as directed by the court. The determination of the precise noncustodial ministerial duties that are to be performed by the clerk, including their existence, scope, and form, is a matter of court administration and is therefore reserved exclusively for the judiciary under Const. 1963, art. 3, § 2, Const. 1963, art. 6, § 1, and Const. 1963, art. 6, § 5. This judicial authority includes the discretion to create, abrogate, and divide between the clerk and other staff, noncustodial ministerial functions concerning court administration.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In Lapeer Co. Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich. 559, 561-564, 640 N.W.2d 567 (2002), this Court summarized the factual history of the case.

In 1996 PA 388, the Legislature created the family division of the circuit court. See M.C.L. § 600.1001 et seq., effective January 1, 1998. The act consolidated in the family division jurisdiction of many types of proceedings formerly heard in the circuit court and the probate court. See M.C.L. § 600.1021.

M.C.L. § 600.1011(1) provides for the development of a plan for the operation of the family division in each judicial circuit:

"Not later than July 1, 1997, in each judicial circuit, the chief circuit judge and the chief probate judge or judges shall enter into an agreement that establishes a plan for how the family division will be operated in that circuit...."

On February 25, 1997, this Court issued Administrative Order No. 1997-1, entitled "Implementation of the Family Division of the Circuit Court." The order required all chief circuit and probate judges to "develop a plan for the implementation and operation of the family division, and to identify the manner in which services will be coordinated to provide effective and efficient services to families by the family division of the circuit court." Chief judges were required to seek input from judges, court staff, and other entities providing service to families within the jurisdiction or who will be affected by the operation of the family division. The order required filing of plans with the State Court Administrative Office and approval by that office before implementation.

According to the affidavit of the chief judge of the Lapeer Circuit Court, he followed the implementation directive and met with the judges in the circuit. It was agreed that the family division would be staffed with the employees of the probate court, who were trained in and accustomed to dealing with juvenile cases and other matters formerly within the jurisdiction of the probate court. To implement the plan, Local Administrative Order No. 2000-1 was adopted on February 2, 2000, providing:

"In order to implement the changes required by the legislation creating the Family Division of the Circuit Court (PA 374 and 388 of 1996), to enhance and clarify the procedures to be followed in the new Family Court, to clarify the role of the County Clerk in the operations of the Family Court, to merge the procedures previously followed in juvenile, child protective proceedings and ancillary proceedings into the Family Court, to maintain the Court's data entry system, and to adopt new procedures for efficient administration of the Family Court, the Court issues the following administrative order:

"1. The County Clerk will continue to accept pleadings, maintain files and complete entries into the Court's data system in all domestic cases and PPOs and shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of those records.

"2. The Family Court staff will continue to accept filings, maintain files, prepare orders and complete entries into the Court's data system in all juvenile cases, child protective proceedings, name changes, adoptions, and ancillary proceedings and shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of those records.

"3. The Family Court staff will be responsible for scheduling all juvenile cases, child protective proceedings, name changes, adoptions, and ancillary proceedings. In addition, the Family Court staff will be responsible for making referrals, scheduling hearings, preparation of orders and arranging pretrials and trials in domestic cases. The Family Court staff will make appropriate entries into the Court's data systems of these proceedings.

"4. The County Clerk staff will continue to manage the motion day dockets, no-progress docket and non-service dismissals in domestic cases. The County Clerk staff will continue to attend the domestic motion docket sessions of the Family Court and make appropriate entries into the Court's data system of those proceedings.

"5. The Family Court staff shall continue to be responsible for all filing fees, receipts, disbursements and accountings for support payments, restitution, administrative and program fees, and child care funds received in juvenile cases, child protective proceedings, name changes, adoptions and ancillary proceedings. The County Clerk shall continue to accept all filing fees in domestic cases for the Family Court.

"6. Local Administrative Order 1999-2 is hereby rescinded and replaced by this order.

"This order is issued pursuant to MCR 8.112 and will be effective upon approval by the State Court Administrator. The matters covered in this order will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and this order will expire on December 31, 2000, unless extended by order of the Court." [²]

On February 9, 2000, the Acting Director of Trial Court Services for the State Court Administrative Office advised the circuit court that

"we have reviewed the above referenced Administrative Order and find that it conforms with the requirements of MCR 8.112(B). This order is being accepted and filed until advised by your court of any change."

The Lapeer County Clerk and the Michigan Association of County Clerks filed this original action in the Court of Appeals requesting a writ of superintending control. Their complaint alleged, among other things:

"17. The Court's Administrative Order, No. 2000-1 violates Michigan's Constitution, laws, and court rules by preventing the Clerk from performing her constitutional and statutorily mandated duties. Specifically, by issuing and implementing Administrative Order No. 2000-1, the Court usurped the Clerk's constitutional and statutory duties with respect to Paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the Order.

* * *

"18. Both family division judges in Lapeer County (Judges Preisel and Higgins) prohibit the County Clerk from performing her circuit court duties with respect to juvenile matters by preventing her from opening new cases, maintaining the care and custody of the court records, entering data into the Court's JIS system, performing court room functions, preventing the Clerk from assisting the public as well as other judicial staff and employees, and accounting for the court's finances.

* * *

"20. Judges Higgins and Preisel further refuse to allow the

...