LAPEER CTY. CLERK v. Lapeer Circuit Judges

• Decision Date: 12 March 2002
• Docket Number: Docket No. Calendar No. 6.,Docket No. 118091,Docket No. 118102
• Citation: 640 N.W.2d 567,465 Mich. 559
• Parties: LAPEER COUNTY CLERK and Michigan Association of County Clerks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LAPEER CIRCUIT JUDGES, Defendants-Appellees, and Lapeer County, Defendant-Appellant. Lapeer County Clerk and Michigan Association of County Clerks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Lapeer Circuit Judges, Defendants-Appellants, and Lapeer County, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

640 N.W.2d 567

465 Mich. 559

LAPEER COUNTY CLERK and Michigan Association of County Clerks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LAPEER CIRCUIT JUDGES, Defendants-Appellees, and Lapeer County, Defendant-Appellant.

Lapeer County Clerk and Michigan Association of County Clerks, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Lapeer Circuit Judges, Defendants-Appellants, and

Lapeer County, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 118091, 118102, Calendar No. 6.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued October 10, 2001.

Decided March 12, 2002.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C., by Michael J. Hodge and Bernard R. Marinelli, Lansing, MI, for plaintiff-appellee Lapeer County Clerk.

Lange & Cholack, P.C., by Craig W. Lange and Barbara F. Doolittle, Troy, MI, for defendant-appellant Lapeer County. Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Darrin F. Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for defendants-appellants Lapeer Circuit Judges.

Alton T. Davis, Secretary, Michigan Judges Association, Grayling, MI, Frederick R. Mulhauser, Representative, Michigan Probate Judges Association, Charlevoix, MI, Leo Bowman, President, Michigan District Judges Association, and Julie M. Hirsch Pontiac, MI, for the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan Probate Judges Association, and the Michigan District Judges Association.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs filed this superintending control action challenging the Lapeer Circuit Court's plan for the operation of the family division of the circuit court. The Court of Appeals granted part of the relief sought, finding that the plan improperly denied the county clerk the right and duty to function as clerk of the court for the family division. We conclude that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction of the superintending control action, and reverse.

I

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.

MCL 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 referals, 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 1999-02 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.

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.

II

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. 2000-01 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. 2000-01, 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 County Clerk to perform as Clerk of the circuit court with respect to trials.

Plaintiffs' complaint requested the Court of Appeals to declare unlawful the Lapeer Circuit Court administrative order, and to direct the judges of the family division of the Lapeer Circuit Court to comply with Const. 1963, art. 6, § 14, statutes, and court rules by permitting the county clerk to perform her legal authorized duties as clerk of the court for the family division of the circuit court.¹

Lapeer County intervened as a party defendant, and the defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court also claimed that the clerks' association lacked standing and that plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted superintending control. The Court of Appeals declared unlawful those portions of Local Administrative Order No. 2000-01 that direct family court staff, rather than the county clerk, to perform the duties assigned to the county clerk by statute or court rule, and directed the judges of the family division to permit the county clerk to perform those duties assigned her by statute or court rule as a clerk of the court for the family division. It declared lawful the remaining portions of the administrative order, and dismissed the clerks' association's claims for lack of standing.²

The circuit court and the county filed applications for leave to appeal. After staying the precedential effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, we granted leave to appeal, limited to the issue: "[W]hether the Court of Appeals had subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint for superintending control...."³

III

In this case, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction turns on questions of interpretation of statutes and court rules, which we review de novo. Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456, 461, 628 N.W.2d 515 (2001)...