Opinion
372838
11-14-2024
CLARE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY v. CLARE COUNTY
LC No. 2023-900253-AW
Michael J. Kelly Presiding Judge Christopher M. Murray Adrienne N. Young Judges
ORDER
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(4) and MCR 7.205(E)(2), and in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we REVERSE the October 8, 2024 order of the circuit court and REMAND with instructions for the circuit court to dismiss the matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act directs that the type of action filed in this case over a serviceable level of funding must be filed as an original action in this Court. MCL 141.436(9); MCL 141.438(7). This Court's jurisdiction over such an action is exclusive and cannot be transferred to any other court. MCL 141.438(10). Plaintiff cannot avoid the plain statutory language through artful pleading. See Manning v Amerman, 229 Mich.App. 608, 613; 582 N.W.2d 539 (1998). Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the Legislature's choice in MCL 141.438(7) to deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim is contemplated and permitted by Const 1963, art 6, § 13. See Citizens Protecting Michigan's Const v Sec'y of State, 324 Mich.App. 561, 605; 922 N.W.2d 404 (2018) (explaining that art 6, § 13 "provides the circuit court with jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law, which illustrates that the framers intended that the circuit courts' jurisdiction would have exceptions."). See also Smith v Landrum, 334 Mich.App. 511, 519-520; 965 N.W.2d 253 (2020).
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.