Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Court

665 N.W.2d 452, 469 Mich. 146
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 22, 2003
DocketDocket 121400
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 665 N.W.2d 452 (Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Court, 665 N.W.2d 452, 469 Mich. 146 (Mich. 2003).

Opinions

Corrigan, C.J.

The Lapeer County Clerk has filed a complaint for superintending control pursuant to MCR 3.302. We are called to determine whether Lapeer Circuit Court Local Administrative Order No. 2002-01 (LAO 2002-01)1 impermissibly assigns duties of the county clerk to the staff of the family division of the circuit court. We note, however, that a new plan for the operation of the family division of the circuit court must be agreed upon by July 1, 2003. See Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2003-2. This administrative order requires that the clerk be given the opportunity to participate in the development of the plan provisions for managing court records, and the clerk may file a statement of concurrence or disagreement with the records-management portion of the plan. The order also calls for mediation of disagreements at the Supreme Court’s direction. Because LAO 2002-01 is no longer the operative plan, having expired on July 1, 2003, we decline to comment on it specifically, but we issue this opinion pursuant to our rule-making authority, Const 1963, art 6, § 5, to provide guidance to courts as they craft future adminis[149]*149trative orders. The complaint for superintending control is dismissed.

After careful review of the Constitution, we conclude that the clerk of the court must have the care and custody of the court records. Further, the circuit court clerk is to perform ministerial duties that are noncustodial as required by the court.

Because a clerk’s care and custody function is contemplated by Const 1963, art 6, § 14, as evidenced by our historical understanding of that provision, the circuit court cannot interfere with the circuit court clerk’s constitutional obligation to perform that function. The custodial function, however, is a limited one. In acting as custodian of the records, the clerk is responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the records. Having care and custody of the records, however, does not imply ownership of the records. Rather, the clerk’s custodial function entails safeguarding the records on behalf of the circuit court, and making those records available to their owner, which is the circuit court. The clerk is also obligated to make the records available to the public, when appropriate.

Beyond having the care and custody of the court’s records, the circuit court clerk is also to perform noncustodial ministerial duties as directed by the court. The determination of the precise noncustodial ministerial duties that are to be performed by the clerk, including their existence, scope, and form, is a matter of court administration and is therefore reserved exclusively for the judiciary under Const 1963, art 3, § 2, Const 1963, art 6, § 1, and Const 1963, art 6, § 5. This judicial authority includes the discretion to create, abrogate, and divide between the clerk and other [150]*150staff, noncustodial ministerial functions concerning court administration.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559, 561-564; 640 NW2d 567 (2002), this Court summarized the factual history of the case.

In 1996 PA 388, the Legislature created the family division of the circuit court. See MCL 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 MCL 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 [151]*151family 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 referrals, 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 [152]*152the Family Court and make appropriate entries into the Court’s data system of those proceedings.
“5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Senate v. House of Representatives
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2025
Robert Davis v. Secretary of State
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2020
Fred Paquin v. City of St Ignace
Michigan Supreme Court, 2019
Paulette Stenzel v. Best Buy Company Inc
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
O’connell v. Director of Elections
894 N.W.2d 113 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2016)
Doe v. Department of Corrections
312 Mich. App. 97 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015)
John Doe 1 v. Department of Corrections
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
Uaw v. Green
870 N.W.2d 867 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2015)
Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. State of Michigan
870 N.W.2d 275 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2015)
Mayor of Cadillac v. Blackburn
857 N.W.2d 529 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2014)
Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. State
302 Mich. App. 187 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2013)
AFSCME Council 25 v. State Employees' Retirement System
294 Mich. App. 1 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
665 N.W.2d 452, 469 Mich. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapeer-county-clerk-v-lapeer-circuit-court-mich-2003.