2.3District Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The district court has the following jurisdiction:

•Civil claims of $25,000 or less. MCL 600.8301(1).

•“[I]n its subject-matter jurisdiction inquiry, a district 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.” Hodge v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 499 Mich 211, 223-224 (2016). In the absence of bad faith in the pleadings, even if a plaintiff’s proofs exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court under MCL 600.8301(1), “the prayer for relief controls when determining the amount in controversy, and the limit of awardable damages.” Hodge, 499 Mich at 221, 224 (concluding that “in adopting MCL 600.8301, the Legislature intended to continue the longstanding practice of determining the jurisdictional amount based on the amount prayed for in the complaint”; thus, where a district court plaintiff pleads a case of damages for $25,000 or less and obtains a verdict for more than that amount, he or she is limited to the jurisdictional amount ($25,000)).

•“A joint stipulation in good faith to an amount in controversy that has been approved by the court necessarily governs a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, as any pleading that contradicts such a joint stipulation is unjustifiable and cannot be proved.” Krolczyk v Hyundai Motor America, 507 Mich 966, 966 n 2 (2021) (cleaned up) (not addressing “whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction if the parties knowingly stipulate to an unjustifiable amount in controversy in order to provide that court with subject-matter jurisdiction where it otherwise would not possess subject-matter jurisdiction over that action”). In Krolczyk, 507 Mich at 966, the parties initially filed a complaint in circuit court stating that the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000. “After defendants rejected a case evaluation award of $14,000 to plaintiffs, the parties filed a stipulation in the circuit court that the amount in controversy was less than $25,000 and requested that the case be transferred to the district court pursuant to MCR 2.227.” Krolczyk, 507 Mich  at 966. “The failure of the parties to explicitly stipulate to an appropriate amendment of the complaint when they requested that the circuit court transfer the case to the district court, as required by Administrative Order No. 1998-1, . . . did not deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.” Krolczyk, 507 Mich at 966 (“[a]ssuming that the circuit court should not have transferred the case pursuant to AO 1998-1 without an express stipulation to an appropriate amendment of the complaint, any error in granting the transfer without such a stipulation was a procedural error that defendants waived by failing to challenge the transfer within a reasonable time after it occurred”) (emphasis added).

•Generally, under the American rule, “each party bears its own litigation expenses, including that party’s own attorney fees, and therefore, [those] expenses are usually not part of the matter at controversy between the parties.” ABCS Troy, LLC v Loancraft, LLC, 337 Mich App 125, 132 (2021). However, “the American rule is not an absolute one and . . . parties can contract around it[.]” Id. “When parties do this, a claim of attorney fees under a contractual fee-shifting provision is one for general damages,” and “general damages count toward the amount in controversy.” Id. at 132-133, 139-141 (noting that although a party cannot know for certain the amount of attorney fees at the beginning of a lawsuit, when “a party makes a claim for attorney fees under [a contractual] provision, then that party can submit a reasonable estimate of such fees that it expects to incur during the lawsuit for purposes of determining the amount in controversy”; additionally, “a defendant can bring a counterclaim . . . seeking relief in an amount beyond the district court’s jurisdictional limit”). See Section 8.6(F) for additional information on an award of contractual attorney fees.

•The circuit court properly granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) because the district court had exclusive jurisdiction where, despite the plaintiff’s claim of damages in excess of $25,000, “the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid legal services under any theory ‘could not be proved’ to exceed $25,000.” Meisner Law Group PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass’n, 321 Mich App 702, 721 (2017), quoting Hodge, 499 Mich at 222 n 31.

•Civil infractions.¹ MCL 600.8301(2).

•Although the Family Division of the Circuit Court generally has jurisdiction over all offenses committed by a person who is under 18 years of age, MCL 712A.2, it “may enter into an agreement with any or all district courts or municipal courts within the court’s geographic jurisdiction to waive jurisdiction over any or all civil infractions alleged to have been committed by juveniles within the geographic jurisdiction of the district court or municipal court. The agreement shall specify for which civil infractions the court waives jurisdiction.” MCL 712A.2e(1). “For a civil infraction waived under [MCL 712A.2e(1)] committed by a juvenile on or after the effective date of the agreement, the district court or municipal court has jurisdiction over the juvenile in the same manner as if an adult had committed the civil infraction.” MCL 712A.2e(2). However, the family division “has jurisdiction over juveniles who commit any other civil infraction.” Id.

•Summary proceedings to recover land.² MCL 600.5704. However, damage claims in excess of the jurisdictional limit must be removed to circuit court. Ames v Maxson, 157 Mich App 75, 80-81 (1987), rev’d on other grounds by Mich Nat’l Bank v Cote, 451 Mich 180 (1996)³; MCR 4.201(H)(2)(b); MCR 4.202(I)(4). “When removal of a money claim exceeding the jurisdiction of the district court takes place, the summary proceedings claim remains within the jurisdiction of the district court.” Adamski v Cole, 197 Mich App 124, 128 (1992). “A summary proceedings action need not be removed from the court in which it is filed because an equitable defense or counterclaim is interposed.” MCR 4.201(H)(2)(a).

•Criminal. MCL 600.8311.

•Misdemeanors punishable by fine or imprisonment of 1 year or less, or both. MCL 600.8311(a).

•Ordinance and charter violations punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. MCL 600.8311(b).

•Arraignments, setting bail, and accepting bonds. MCL 600.8311(c).

•Probable cause conferences in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court and all matters allowed at the probable cause conference under MCL 766.4. MCL 600.8311(d).

•Preliminary examinations for all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court and all matters allowed at the preliminary examination under MCL 766.1 et seq. MCL 600.8311(e). There is no preliminary examination for any misdemeanor case that will be tried in a district court. Id.

•Circuit court arraignments in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court under MCL 766.13. MCL 600.8311(f). See also MCR 6.111(A) (allowing the district court judge to take a felony plea as provided by court rule). However, sentencing for felony cases and misdemeanor cases must be conducted by a circuit judge. MCL 600.8311(f); MCL 766.4(3); MCR 6.111(A).

•The district court may accept a plea in felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court under MCL 766.4(3). However, sentencing for felony cases and misdemeanor cases must be conducted by a circuit judge. Id. See also MCL 600.8311(f); MCR 6.111(A). The name of the circuit judge assigned to the case must be made available to the litigants prior to entry of the plea. Id.

•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).

•Small claims⁴ in which the amount claimed does not exceed the following:

•Beginning January 21, 2021, $6,500.00.

•Beginning January 1, 2024, $7,000.00. MCL 600.8401(d)-(e).

Generally, the district court does not have jurisdiction over actions for injunctions, divorce, or actions that are historically equitable in nature. MCL 600.8315.⁵ However, the district court has been granted limited equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with the circuit court pursuant to MCL 600.8302(1) for the following types of matters:

•In small claims cases, injunctions and orders rescinding or reforming contracts. MCL 600.8302(2).

•In summary proceedings (Chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act), equitable claims regarding interests in land and equitable claims arising out of foreclosure, partition, or public nuisances. MCL 600.8302(3). See also Mfr Hanover Mtg Corp v Snell, 142 Mich App 548, 554 (1985) (noting the district court has jurisdiction over equitable claims and defenses involving a mortgagor’s interest in property).⁶

•In municipal civil infraction actions (Chapter 87 of the Revised Judicature Act), to issue and enforce any judgment, writ, or order necessary to enforce the ordinance. MCL 600.8302(4).

•In forfeiture proceedings (Chapter 47 of the Revised Judicature Act), to issue and enforce any order or judgment relating to the forfeiture action. MCL 600.8303.

•Attachment and garnishment under certain conditions. MCL 600.8306.

•Civil actions to recover the possession of goods or chattels which are unlawfully taken or unlawfully detained if within the limitations of the jurisdictional amount and venue otherwise applicable to the district court. MCL 600.8308.

A.Concurrent Jurisdiction

Some district courts are under concurrent jurisdiction plans pursuant to MCL 600.401.⁷ However, there are some limitations on a district court’s jurisdiction under a concurrent jurisdiction plan:

“(a) The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the district court and from administrative agencies as authorized by statute.

(b) The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction and power to issue, hear, and determine prerogative and remedial writs consistent with section 13 of article VI of the state constitution of 1963.” MCL 600.8304.

Under a concurrent jurisdiction plan, any magistrate in any of the district courts involved in the concurrent jurisdiction plan approved by the Michigan Supreme Court is authorized to use any powers granted to them by their judge under the local administrative order (LAO), which must outline the duties that the district court magistrate is authorized to perform pursuant to statute. See MCL 600.401, MCL 600.8304, MCL 600.8501, Administrative Order No. 2009-6, 485 Mich xcv (2009). See also the Michigan Judicial Institute’s District Court Magistrate Manual, Chapter 1, for more information on authority of district court magistrates.

B.Removal to Circuit Court

MCR 4.002 covers the transfer of an action from district court to circuit court.

1.Counterclaim or Cross-Claim in Excess of Jurisdiction

“If a defendant asserts a counterclaim or cross-claim seeking relief of an amount or nature beyond the jurisdiction or power of the district court in which the action is pending, and accompanies the notice of the claim with a statement verified in the manner prescribed by MCR 1.109(D)(3) indicating that the defendant is justly entitled to the relief demanded, the clerk shall record the pleadings and present them to the judge to whom the action is assigned.” MCR 4.002(A)(1). “The judge shall either order the action transferred to the circuit court to which appeal of the action would ordinarily lie or inform the defendant that transfer will not be ordered without a motion and notice to the other parties.” Id.⁸ 

2.Change of Condition, Circumstance, or Unknown Facts Requiring Relief in Excess of Jurisdiction

“A party may, at any time, file a motion with the district court in which an action is pending, requesting that the action be transferred to circuit court. The motion must be supported by a statement verified in the manner prescribed by MCR 1.109(D)(3) indicating that

(a) due to a change in condition or circumstance, or

(b) due to facts not known by the party at the time the action was commenced, the party wishes to seek relief of an amount or nature that is beyond the jurisdiction or power of the court to grant.” MCR 4.002(B)(1).

“If the district court finds that the party filing the motion may be entitled to the relief the party now seeks to claim and that the delay in making the claim is excusable, the court shall order the action transferred to the circuit court to which an appeal of the action would ordinarily lie.” MCR 4.002(B)(2).

3.Order for Transfer, Case Records, and Required Fees

“The district court must enter all necessary orders pertaining to the certification and transfer of the action to the circuit court” and “order the moving party to pay the applicable statutory filing fee directly to the circuit court, unless fees have been waived in accordance with MCR 2.002.”⁹ MCR 4.002(C)(1). The order 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). “The district court may also order the party seeking transfer to pay the opposing parties the costs they have reasonably incurred up to that time that would not have been incurred if the action had originally been brought in circuit court.” MCR 4.002(C)(2).

“The district court must serve the order [of transfer] on the parties and send a copy to the circuit court. The clerk of the district court must prepare the case records for transfer in accordance with the orders entered under [MCR 4.002(C)(1)] and the Michigan Trial Court Records Management Standards and send them to the receiving court by a secure method.” MCR 4.002(C)(3). “The circuit court shall temporarily suspend payment of the filing fee and open a case pending payment of the filing fee and costs as ordered by the district court. The circuit court must notify the moving party of the new case number in the circuit court, the amount due, and the due date.” MCR 4.002(C)(4).

Any jury fee paid in the district court will transfer to the circuit court, and the party requesting the jury must pay the circuit court any difference in the jury fee. MCR 4.002(D)(2).

4.Proceedings After Transfer

“After transfer, no further proceedings may be conducted in the district court, and the action shall proceed in the circuit court. The circuit court may order further pleadings and set the time when they must be filed.” MCR 4.002(C)(5).

“No further action may be had in the case [in circuit court] until payment [of the applicable filing fee] is made.” MCR 4.002(D)(1). The circuit court must dismiss the counterclaim or cross-claimor enter an order transferring the case back to the district court if the filing fee or costs ordered by the district court are not paid within 28 days of the date of the transfer order. Id.; MCR 4.002(D)(3).

C.Appeals from District Court to Circuit Court

Appeals from the district court to the circuit court are governed by MCL 600.8341, MCL 600.8342, and MCR 7.101 et seq.

Jurisdiction vests in the circuit court after a claim of appeal is filed or leave to appeal is granted.¹⁰ MCR 7.107.

“Appeals from the district court shall be on a written transcript of the record made in the district court or on a record settled and agreed to by the parties and approved by the court.” MCL 600.8341. “Appeals from the district court shall be to the circuit court in the county in which the judgment is rendered.” MCL 600.8342(1). Appeals from final judgments are generally appeals as of right and other appeals are by application; however, all appeals from final orders and judgments based upon pleas of guilty or nolo contendere are by application. MCL 600.8342(2); MCL 600.8342(4). “All appeals to the court of appeals from judgments entered by the circuit court or the recorder’s court on appeals from the district court shall be by application.” MCL 600.8342(3).