Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
February 08, 2016

MSC grants oral argument to consider scope of district court funding and revenue sharing

In City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, No. 152035, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application to consider whether all cities in a judicial district are required to fund the district court and whether the cities are entitled to revenue sharing of court-imposed fees.  The trial court granted partial summary disposition for the defendants, finding that both parties were obligated to fund the district court and that the court funds were not subject to distribution under MCL 600.8379.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that cities served by a district court located elsewhere must financially support that district court, and that the cities are not entitled to share in court revenues collected for purposes other than prosecution (i.e. fees are not “fines and costs” that must be shared).  The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument on three issues:
 
(1) Whether, in the absence of an agreement for joint funding of a district court where the court sits in only one political subdivision, all units within the district are obligated to fund the court;
 
(2) Whether the parties in this case agreed that the 45th District Court would be funded entirely by the City of Oak Park; and
 
(3) Whether revenue from fees collected for the district court is subject to revenue sharing under MCL 600.8379(1)(c).
 
To read our previous blog post about the Court of Appeals’ opinion, click here

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset