Concurrent Jurisdiction

2.6Concurrent Jurisdiction ¹

“A concurrent jurisdiction plan that was adopted, approved by the supreme court, and in effect on December 31, 2012, is considered valid and in compliance with the requirements of [MCL 600.401 et seq.]” MCL 600.412.

Concurrent jurisdiction plans must be “designed to benefit the citizens utilizing the courts involved rather than the courts themselves or any judge or judges.” MCL 600.413(1).

A judge voting against a plan of concurrent jurisdiction under MCL 600.401 et seq. may file an objection with the state court administrator. MCL 600.413(2). The objection must specifically state the reasons for the objection and may include objections based on insufficient allocation of staff or resources, inadequate training for any judge or staff, excessive assignments outside of a judge’s election district, or retaliation for any action, including failing to vote for a concurrent jurisdiction plan. Id. “Subject to approval of the supreme court, before the supreme court approves a concurrent jurisdiction plan under [MCL 600.401 et seq.], the state court administrator shall review objections under [MCL 600.413] and report the substance of the objections and the administrator’s findings about the objections’ validity to the supreme court. Subject to approval of the supreme court, the state court administrator shall forward a proposed concurrent jurisdiction plan to the supreme court for review after affirmatively finding that the proposed concurrent jurisdiction plan is in compliance with [MCL 600.401 et seq.] and the best interests of the people in the communities being served.” MCL 600.413(3).

“Within each judicial circuit, subject to approval by the supreme court and to the limitations contained in [MCL 600.410, MCL 600.841, and MCL 600.8304], a plan of concurrent jurisdiction shall be adopted by a majority vote of all of the judges of the trial courts in the plan unless a majority of all of the judges of the trial courts in that judicial circuit vote not to have a plan of concurrent jurisdiction. If a majority of all of the judges of the trial courts in a judicial circuit vote not to have a plan of concurrent jurisdiction, the chief judge of the circuit court of that judicial circuit shall report the results of that vote to the state court administrator.” MCL 600.401(1).

“A plan of concurrent jurisdiction under [MCL 600.401] may provide for 1 or more of the following:

(a) The circuit court and 1 or more circuit judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of the probate court.

(b) The circuit court and 1 or more circuit judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of the district court.

(d) The probate court and 1 or more probate judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of the district court.

(e) The district court and 1 or more district judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of the circuit court.

(f) The district court and 1 or more district judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of the probate court.

(g) If there are multiple district court districts within the judicial circuit, 1 or more district judges may exercise the power and jurisdiction of judge of another district court district within the judicial circuit.” MCL 600.401(2).

“A plan of concurrent jurisdiction adopted under this chapter shall not include a delegation of any of the following:

(a) A power of appointment to a public office delegated by constitution or statute to the circuit court or a circuit judge.

(b) A power of appointment to a public office delegated by constitution or statute to the probate court or a probate judge.

(c) A power of appointment to a public office delegated by law to the district court or a district judge, unless that power of appointment is delegated to a court or judge other than the circuit court or a circuit judge.” MCL 600.410.