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.
