2.4Circuit Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The circuit court is the court of general jurisdiction. Const 1963, art 6, § 13; MCL 600.605. It has jurisdiction over all matters not assigned to other courts, except as otherwise provided by the Legislature. Const 1963, art 6, § 13; MCL 600.605. See also Schaaf v Forbes (On Remand), 338 Mich App 1, 12 (2021) (“jurisdiction extends to all civil claims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); In re Petition of Tuscola Co Treasurer for Foreclosure, 317 Mich App 688, 695 (2016) (“circuit courts are presumed to have subject-matter jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is expressly prohibited or given to another court by constitution or statute”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

In 1996, the Legislature created the Family Division of Circuit Court by transferring many cases previously handled by the probate court to the circuit courts and by requiring circuit courts and probate courts to develop a plan for the family division. MCL 600.1011; MCL 600.1021. The legislation anticipated that some probate judges would serve in the family division. MCL 600.1011(6).

The circuit court may share jurisdiction with other courts under a plan of concurrent jurisdiction and is subject to the requirements of MCL 600.401 et seq.¹

The circuit court has jurisdiction over the following:

•Family division cases listed in MCL 600.1021(1) (sole and exclusive jurisdiction lies in the family division),² including

•Abuse and neglect

•Adoptions

•Divorces, paternity, child custody, child support, adoption

•“In general, ‘the jurisdiction of a divorce court is strictly statutory and limited to determining the rights and obligations between the husband and wife, to the exclusion of third parties.’” Souden v Souden, 303 Mich App 406, 410 (2013), quoting Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 582-583 (2008). “Third parties can be joined in a divorce action only if they are alleged to have conspired with one spouse to defraud the other spouse.” Souden, 303 Mich App at 410. “Specifically, a divorce court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of third-party creditors.” Id. However, “a divorce court [has] power to enforce charging liens secured by a judgment of divorce.” Id. at 411.

•Waiver of parental consent for abortions performed on unemancipated minors under the Parental Rights Restoration Act (PRRA), MCL 722.901 et seq.³

•Juvenile delinquency, name changes, emancipations

•Personal protection orders

•Felony criminal cases and misdemeanor criminal cases punishable by at least 1 year imprisonment. See MCL 600.8311; Const 1963, art 6, § 13.

•In general, state courts in Michigan, not federal courts, “have jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution in which a defendant is a non-Indian, the offense is committed on Indian lands or in Indian country, and the offense is either victimless or the victim is not an Indian.” People v Collins, 298 Mich App 166, 177 (2012).

•Civil cases involving more than $25,000. MCL 600.605.

•“The circuit courts lack jurisdiction over actions in which the amount in controversy could not exceed $25,000, as determined at the outset of the proceedings on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.” Rodriguez v Hirshberg Acceptance Corp, 341 Mich App 349, 365 (2022). “Generally, in its subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry a court determines the amount in controversy using the prayer for relief set forth in the plaintiff’s pleadings, calculated exclusive of fees, costs, and interest.” Id. at 365 (cleaned up).Recovering less than $25,000 “does not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction[.]” Souden, 303 Mich App at 412.

•Although the plaintiff’s pleadings alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000, the circuit court properly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction where “the undisputed facts showed the amount in controversy could not exceed $25,000[;]” “[a]lthough a plaintiff may claim damages in excess of $25,000, where the documentary evidence submitted to the circuit court shows by undisputed facts that the plaintiff’s claim to damages exceeding the jurisdictional amount cannot be proved, summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is proper.” Meisner Law Group PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass’n, 321 Mich App 702, 714, 719 (2017).

•Specified juvenile violations as described in MCL 600.606.

•Appeals from inferior courts and tribunals, except as otherwise provided. Const 1963, art 6, § 13. See also Const 1963, art 6, § 13. For more information on circuit court appeals, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Appeals & Opinions Benchbook, Chapter 2.

•Appeals from state boards, commissions, or agencies. MCL 600.631.

•Extraordinary writs as limited by MCR 3.301. See also MCR 7.206(B).

•Equity. MCL 600.601(1).

•Condemnation cases commenced under the drain code of 1956. MCL 600.601(2).

•Superintending control over all inferior courts and tribunals. MCL 600.615.

•Authority to make rules for circuit court matters not addressed by court rule or statute. MCL 600.621.

•Authority to determine real property rights/interests. MCL 600.2932(1); MCL 600.3301. “[B]y having set forth and retaining specific statutory authorization for the circuit court to hear and decide matters concerning rights to real property [(MCL 600.2932(1); MCL 600.3301)], the Legislature provided that its grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the probate court over the administration and distribution of trusts [does] not extend to . . . real property claims.” Schaaf, 338 Mich App at 13 (concluding “that the circuit court ha[s] subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and decide” real property claims stemming from the administration and distribution of a trust). See Section 2.5 for additional information on probate court subject-matter jurisdiction.

•Claims of breach of a mortgage agreement, nuisance, and dangerous building, as well as requests for receivership or foreclosure. Southfield v Shefa, LLC, 340 Mich App 391, 407 (2022), citing MCL 554.1016; MCL 600.2926; MCL 600.2927; MCL 600.2940; MCL 125.542; MCL 600.3101; MCL 600.601; MCL 600.605.

A.Removal to District Court

MCR 2.227 covers transfer of actions upon a finding of lack of jurisdiction. See Section 2.2(A) for a discussion of MCR 2.227.

“A circuit court may not transfer an action to district court under [MCR 2.227] based on the amount in controversy unless:

(a) the parties stipulate in good faith to the transfer and to an amount in controversy not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court; or

(b) from the allegations of the complaint, it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court.” MCR 2.227(B)(1).

 

An order for transfer of jurisdiction must be entered on a SCAO-approved form. MCR 2.226(A). If the order “is not prepared as required under [MCR 2.226(A)], and the order lacks the information necessary for the receiving court to determine under which rule the transfer was ordered, the clerk of the receiving court shall refuse to accept the transfer and shall prepare a notice of refusal on a form approved by the [SCAO] and return the case to the transferring court for a proper order within seven business days of receipt of the transfer order.” MCR 2.226(B). Upon receipt of a refusal to accept a transfered case under MCR 2.226(B), the transferring court must “prepare a proper order in accordance with [MCR 2.226(A)] and retransfer the case within seven business days.” MCR 2.226(C).

B.Aggregating Claims

In an action that is not a class action, multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their claims to establish the jurisdictional limit for circuit court. Boyd v Nelson Credit Ctrs, Inc, 132 Mich App 774, 780-781 (1984) (distinguishing Crippen v Fletcher, 56 Mich 386 (1885) and Henderson v Detroit & Mackinac R Co, 131 Mich 438 (1902) because those cases permitted a single plaintiff to aggregate claims and did not address the aggregation of multiple plaintiffs’ claims). See also Mich Head & Spine Institute PC v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 338 Mich App 721, 727 (2021) (holding that “based on treatment it provided to 39 separate patients,” plaintiff was “indisputably a single plaintiff attempting to aggregate its various claims,” and “applying the rule from Boyd,” plaintiff could “aggregate its various claims for the purposes of determining jurisdiction”); Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 443 (2014) (holding that under the specific facts of the case, there was “such an identity between the providers’ and [the plaintiff’s] claims that consolidation for trial resulted in merging the claims” to determine the amount in controversy; further, “the providers’ claims [were] derivative of [the plaintiff’s] claims,” thus, the rule allowing a single plaintiff to aggregate claims to determine subject-matter jurisdiction applied), rev’d on other grounds by Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 Mich 211 (2016).⁴

While MCR 2.206(A) permits the joinder of parties, it is unclear whether that rule can be used to establish jurisdiction which would not otherwise exist.

C.Business Courts

“A business court has jurisdiction over business and commercial disputes in which equitable or declaratory relief is sought or in which the matter otherwise meets circuit court jurisdictional requirements.” MCL 600.8035(1).

“Business and commercial disputes include, but are not limited to, the following types of actions:

(a) Those involving the sale, merger, purchase, combination, dissolution, liquidation, organizational structure, governance, or finances of a business enterprise.

(b) Those involving information technology, software, or website development, maintenance, or hosting.

(c) Those involving the internal organization or business entities and the rights or obligations of shareholders, partners, members, officers, directors, or managers.

(d) Those arising out of contractual agreements or other business dealings, including licensing, trade secret, intellectual property, antitrust, securities, noncompete, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality agreements if all available administrative remedies are completely exhausted, including, but not limited to, alternative dispute resolution processes prescribed in the agreements.

(e) Those arising out of commercial transactions, including commercial bank transactions.

(f) Those arising out of business or commercial insurance policies.

(g) Those involving commercial real property.” MCL 600.8031(2).

See MCL 600.8031(3) for a list of actions that are specifically not business or commercial disputes.

1.Initial Assignment to Business Court

“An action must be assigned to a business court if all or part of the action includes a business or commercial dispute. An action that involves a business or commercial dispute that is filed in a court with a business docket must be maintained in a business court although it also involves claims that are not business or commercial disputes, including excluded claims under [MCL 600.8031(3)].” MCL 600.8035(3).

2.Removal to Business Court

“An action that does not initially include a business or commercial dispute but that subsequently includes a business or commercial dispute as a result of a cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party complaint, amendment, or any other modification of the action must be reassigned by blind draw to a business court after the action is modified to include a business or commercial dispute as prescribed by the plan submitted under [MCL 600.8033(1) or MCL 600.8033(2)], as applicable.” MCL 600.8035(6).

3.Reassignment from Business Court

“An action assigned to a business court judge may be reassigned by blind draw to another judge as prescribed by the plan submitted under [MCL 600.8033(1) or MCL 600.8033(2)], as applicable, if the action ceases to include a business or commercial dispute.” MCL 600.8035(5).

4.Venue, Fees, and Appeals

“Venue of a suit in the business court is as provided in [MCL 600.1601 et seq.].” MCL 600.8035(2).⁵ “The fees payable in civil actions in circuit court apply to cases in a business court, unless otherwise provided by law.” MCL 600.8045. An appeal from a business court is to the Court of Appeals and is governed by [MCR 7.200 et seq.]. MCL 600.8041. However, “[a]n order concerning the assignment of a case to the business court under [MCL 600.8001 et seq.] is not appealable to the court of appeals.” MCL 600.308(3).

D.Jurisdiction Pending Appeal

“[T]he filing of a claim of appeal typically divests the circuit court of its jurisdiction to amend its final orders and judgments.” Cary Investments, LLC v Mount Pleasant, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In Cary, “[b]ecause plaintiff’s motion requested permission to file an amended complaint after the trial court had dismissed the original complaint, the motion asked the circuit court to alter the order plaintiff had already appealed. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint during the pendency of [the] appeal.” Id. at ___.