Jansen, P.J.
Defendant, J. Leonard Hyman, appeals by leave granted from an April 13, 1994, order of the [118]*118Oakland Circuit Court compelling him to pay for the services of a court-appointed expert. We vacate the order.
This case arises from defendant’s departure from plaintiff law firm on December 28, 1990. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Oakland Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with contractual business relations, and fraud. In an order dated April 2, 1993 (during the course of the litigation), the trial court appointed attorney Leonard Miller as an expert witness “to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a final recommendation and proposed judgment as to the disposition of this matter by August 31, 1993.” Miller was given certain duties in the order, and he was given the authority to hire Gary Leeman, a certified public accountant, to assist him.
The parties later agreed to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. On May 24, 1994, the arbitrator issued an arbitration award, resolving the partnership dispute. On April 13, 1994, before the arbitration award was entered, the trial court entered an order compelling payment. Specifically, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $12,540 to the accounting firm of Leeman, Hollander and Associates for services rendered, $3,176 to Leonard Miller for services rendered, and a total of $2,400 for attorney fees and costs. Defendant then sought leave to appeal, which was granted by this Court on November 14, 1994. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court did not have the authority to appoint Miller and Leeman as experts under MRE 706 or under the Michigan Constitution because the duties and responsibilities [119]*119assigned to them essentially made them special masters rather than expert witnesses.
First, we address the question whether the matter was waived for appellate review because defendant never objected to the order appointing Miller and Leeman as experts. In a motion dated December 1, 1993, defendant objected to the proposed first trial and scheduling order. The motion raised the issues that defendant raises on appeal. However, no praecipe appears to have been filed regarding this motion, and the docket sheet does not indicate that oral argument was ever presented to the trial court or that the trial court ever ruled with respect to this motion. Additionally, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the presiding judge and the court-appointed expert in a motion dated December 8, 1993. That motion also raised the same issues that defendant now argues on appeal. The trial court did not rule with respect to the motion.
We believe that the issues are properly preserved for appellate review. Defendant raised the issues below in motions, and he “should not be punished for the omission of the trial court.” Peterman v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). Because defendant raised the issues below and is pursuing them on appeal, the issues are properly before this Court. Id. Moreover, this Court may review an issue if the question is one of law and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented. Brown v Drake-Willock, Int’l, Ltd, 209 Mich App 136, 146; 530 NW2d 510 (1995).
Defendant first argues that the trial court exceeded its permissible authority by delegating judicial authority to Miller and Leeman and that this delegation of [120]*120power violated the Michigan Constitution. The judicial branch is provided for in article 6 of our state constitution. Const 1963, art 6, § 1 provides:
The judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, one probate court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.
Further, Const 1963, art 6, § 27 provides:
The supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, or any justices or judges thereof, shall not exercise any power of appointment to public office except as provided in this constitution.
In Michigan, judicial power is vested in the courts under our state constitution. Johnson v Kramer Bros Freight Lines, Inc, 357 Mich 254, 258; 98 NW2d 586 (1959). Although the Supreme Court is empowered by the Michigan Constitution to authorize persons who have been elected and have served as judges to perform judicial duties for limited periods or specific assignments, Const 1963, art 6, § 23, there are no constitutional or statutory authorities permitting a circuit court judge the power to appoint a retired judge or any other person to sit as a court in a civil action. Brockman v Brockman, 113 Mich App 233, 237; 317 NW2d 327 (1982). Rather, Const 1963, art 6, § 27 specifically prohibits such action. In Brockman, this Court held that a Wayne Circuit Court judge was without constitutional or statutory authority to appoint a former circuit court judge to sit as the court and try the matter. Id., p 237.
[121]*121In this case, the order appointing the expert witness purports to give the expert, under MRE 706, the power to “make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a final recommendation and proposed judgment as to the disposition of this matter by August 31, 1993.” The expert was also given the duties to review all motions and submit findings of fact to the court before the scheduled hearing date, to require the production of evidence, to issue subpoenas through the court, to conduct and regulate miscellaneous proceedings, to examine documents and witnesses, and to prepare final findings of fact and recommendations for judgment. The order permitted the parties to file written objections to the final findings and recommendations and permitted the court to adopt the expert’s recommendation and judgment, to modify the recommendation, or to refer the recommendation to the expert with further instructions.
We agree with defendant that there is no constitutional authority for the trial court to delegate specific judicial functions to an “expert witness.” It is within the peculiar province of the judiciary to adjudicate upon and protect the rights and interests of the citizens and to construe and apply the laws. Johnson, supra, p 258. Thus, the trial court could not delegate its functions of making conclusions of law, reviewing motions, requiring the production of evidence, issuing subpoenas, conducting and regulating miscellaneous proceedings, examining documents and witnesses, and preparing final findings of fact. Although this is what the trial court’s order purports to do, the court cannot appoint an expert witness to perform judicial functions. Accordingly, the trial court was without [122]*122constitutional authority to delegate its specific judicial power to an expert witness.
We also agree with defendant that the trial court’s order is not in conformance with MRE 706. MRE 706 states in relevant part:
(a) Appointment. The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jansen, P.J.
Defendant, J. Leonard Hyman, appeals by leave granted from an April 13, 1994, order of the [118]*118Oakland Circuit Court compelling him to pay for the services of a court-appointed expert. We vacate the order.
This case arises from defendant’s departure from plaintiff law firm on December 28, 1990. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Oakland Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with contractual business relations, and fraud. In an order dated April 2, 1993 (during the course of the litigation), the trial court appointed attorney Leonard Miller as an expert witness “to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a final recommendation and proposed judgment as to the disposition of this matter by August 31, 1993.” Miller was given certain duties in the order, and he was given the authority to hire Gary Leeman, a certified public accountant, to assist him.
The parties later agreed to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. On May 24, 1994, the arbitrator issued an arbitration award, resolving the partnership dispute. On April 13, 1994, before the arbitration award was entered, the trial court entered an order compelling payment. Specifically, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $12,540 to the accounting firm of Leeman, Hollander and Associates for services rendered, $3,176 to Leonard Miller for services rendered, and a total of $2,400 for attorney fees and costs. Defendant then sought leave to appeal, which was granted by this Court on November 14, 1994. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court did not have the authority to appoint Miller and Leeman as experts under MRE 706 or under the Michigan Constitution because the duties and responsibilities [119]*119assigned to them essentially made them special masters rather than expert witnesses.
First, we address the question whether the matter was waived for appellate review because defendant never objected to the order appointing Miller and Leeman as experts. In a motion dated December 1, 1993, defendant objected to the proposed first trial and scheduling order. The motion raised the issues that defendant raises on appeal. However, no praecipe appears to have been filed regarding this motion, and the docket sheet does not indicate that oral argument was ever presented to the trial court or that the trial court ever ruled with respect to this motion. Additionally, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the presiding judge and the court-appointed expert in a motion dated December 8, 1993. That motion also raised the same issues that defendant now argues on appeal. The trial court did not rule with respect to the motion.
We believe that the issues are properly preserved for appellate review. Defendant raised the issues below in motions, and he “should not be punished for the omission of the trial court.” Peterman v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). Because defendant raised the issues below and is pursuing them on appeal, the issues are properly before this Court. Id. Moreover, this Court may review an issue if the question is one of law and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented. Brown v Drake-Willock, Int’l, Ltd, 209 Mich App 136, 146; 530 NW2d 510 (1995).
Defendant first argues that the trial court exceeded its permissible authority by delegating judicial authority to Miller and Leeman and that this delegation of [120]*120power violated the Michigan Constitution. The judicial branch is provided for in article 6 of our state constitution. Const 1963, art 6, § 1 provides:
The judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, one probate court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.
Further, Const 1963, art 6, § 27 provides:
The supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, or any justices or judges thereof, shall not exercise any power of appointment to public office except as provided in this constitution.
In Michigan, judicial power is vested in the courts under our state constitution. Johnson v Kramer Bros Freight Lines, Inc, 357 Mich 254, 258; 98 NW2d 586 (1959). Although the Supreme Court is empowered by the Michigan Constitution to authorize persons who have been elected and have served as judges to perform judicial duties for limited periods or specific assignments, Const 1963, art 6, § 23, there are no constitutional or statutory authorities permitting a circuit court judge the power to appoint a retired judge or any other person to sit as a court in a civil action. Brockman v Brockman, 113 Mich App 233, 237; 317 NW2d 327 (1982). Rather, Const 1963, art 6, § 27 specifically prohibits such action. In Brockman, this Court held that a Wayne Circuit Court judge was without constitutional or statutory authority to appoint a former circuit court judge to sit as the court and try the matter. Id., p 237.
[121]*121In this case, the order appointing the expert witness purports to give the expert, under MRE 706, the power to “make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a final recommendation and proposed judgment as to the disposition of this matter by August 31, 1993.” The expert was also given the duties to review all motions and submit findings of fact to the court before the scheduled hearing date, to require the production of evidence, to issue subpoenas through the court, to conduct and regulate miscellaneous proceedings, to examine documents and witnesses, and to prepare final findings of fact and recommendations for judgment. The order permitted the parties to file written objections to the final findings and recommendations and permitted the court to adopt the expert’s recommendation and judgment, to modify the recommendation, or to refer the recommendation to the expert with further instructions.
We agree with defendant that there is no constitutional authority for the trial court to delegate specific judicial functions to an “expert witness.” It is within the peculiar province of the judiciary to adjudicate upon and protect the rights and interests of the citizens and to construe and apply the laws. Johnson, supra, p 258. Thus, the trial court could not delegate its functions of making conclusions of law, reviewing motions, requiring the production of evidence, issuing subpoenas, conducting and regulating miscellaneous proceedings, examining documents and witnesses, and preparing final findings of fact. Although this is what the trial court’s order purports to do, the court cannot appoint an expert witness to perform judicial functions. Accordingly, the trial court was without [122]*122constitutional authority to delegate its specific judicial power to an expert witness.
We also agree with defendant that the trial court’s order is not in conformance with MRE 706. MRE 706 states in relevant part:
(a) Appointment. The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unless the witness consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of the witness’ duties by the court in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness’ findings, if any; the witness’ deposition may be taken by any party; and the witness may be called to testify by the court or any party. The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the witness.
Although MRE 706 clearly gives the trial court the authority to appoint an expert witness, the trial court could not delegate its judicial authority to the expert witness.
Our Supreme Court has explained that the function of an expert witness is to supply expert testimony. This testimony includes opinion evidence, when a proper foundation is laid, and opinion evidence may embrace ultimate issues of fact. However, the opinion of an expert may not extend to the creation of new legal definitions and standards and to legal conclusions. Downie v Kent Products, Inc, 420 Mich 197, 205; 362 NW2d 605 (1984). Further, an expert witness [123]*123is not permitted to tell the jury how to decide the case. People v Drossart, 99 Mich App 66, 79; 297 NW2d 863 (1980). A “witness is prohibited from opining on the issue of a party’s negligence or nonnegligence, capacity or noncapacity to execute a will or deed, simple versus gross negligence, the criminal responsibility of an accused, or [the accused’s] guilt or innocence.” Id., pp 79-80. Therefore, it is error to permit a witness to give the witness’ own opinion or interpretation of the facts because doing so would invade the province of the jury. Id., p 80. An expert witness also may not give testimony regarding a question of law, because it is the exclusive responsibility of the trial court to find and interpret the law. Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich 579, 592; 513 NW2d 773 (1994).
In the present case, the trial court’s order assigned to the expert witness the duties to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, to review all motions, to require the production of evidence, to issue subpoenas through the court, to conduct and regulate miscellaneous proceedings, and to examine documents and witnesses and provided that the expert would be called to testify only if objections were lodged in writing. If the expert’s recommendation was adopted, the trial court would enter judgment in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the court. These duties are clearly judicial functions that cannot be delegated to an “expert witness.” These duties given to the expert witness are outside the scope of the duties of an expert witness as authorized by MRE 706.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order appointing an expert witness exceeded the authority implicit in [124]*124MRE 706 by requiring the expert to perform duties outside the scope of the duties of an expert witness and within the purview of a court. The order appointing the expert witness is therefore vacated because the trial court was without authority to delegate its judicial power to an expert witness. The order compelling payment is also vacated because the order is based on an unauthorized appointment. Defendant cannot be required to pay for the services of the expert witness in this case where the appointment was not authorized by law.
Because of our resolution regarding the trial court’s order compelling payment, we need not address defendant’s argument that the trial court should have first ruled on his motion to disqualify.
The trial court’s order compelling payment is hereby vacated.
Reilly, J., concurred.