Opinion
No. 130672.
January 5, 2007.
Reported below: 269 Mich App 551.
Order Entered January 5, 2007.
Leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, on the Court's own motion pursuant to MCR 7.316(A)(3), the Court directs each party to file a supplemental brief not later than 42 days after the date of this order specifically addressing the following two questions: (1) whether privately owned land is generally open for hunting with the permission of the owner unless a local government has taken steps to close the land and, if so, what, if any, other procedures exist in addition to MCL 324.41901 to allow a local government to close land to hunting; or (2) whether, instead, privately owned land must first be established as a hunting area before hunting is allowed and, if so, what are the current statutory and regulatory procedures for establishing hunting areas. The Court further directs the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to file a supplemental brief not later than 42 days after the date of this order specifically addressing the two questions set forth above and also addressing whether any municipal land in Michigan is currently closed to hunting and by what authority these lands were closed.
Orders Entered January 9, 2007:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF RULES 3.963 AND 3.965 OF THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES. On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rules 3.963 and 3.965 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter also will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below.]
RULE 3.963. PROTECTIVE CUSTODY OF CHILD.
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Court-Ordered Custody.
(1) The court may issue a written order authorizing a child protective services worker, an officer, or other person deemed suitable by the court to immediately take a child into protective custody when, upon presentment of proofs as required by the court, the judge or referee has reasonable grounds to believe that conditions or surroundings under which the child is found are such as would endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the child and that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. When appropriate; At the time it issues the order or as provided in 3.965(D). the court shall make a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the child have been made or are not required. The court may also include in such an order authorization to enter specified premises to remove the child.
(2)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(C) [Unchanged.]
RULE 3.965. PRELIMINARY HEARING.
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Pretrial Placement; Reasonable Efforts Determination. In making the reasonable efforts determination under this subrule, the child's health and safety must be of paramount concern to the court.
(1) When the court has placed a child with someone other than the custodial parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the court must determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child have been made or that reasonable efforts to prevent removal are not required. The court must make this determination at the earliest possible time, but no later than 60 days from the date of removal, and must state the factual basis for the determination in the court order. Nunc pro tunc orders or affidavits are not acceptable.
(2) [Unchanged.]
(E) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: Revised Paragraph of staff comment as it pertains to Rule 3.963 from the order dated October 24. 2006: The amendment of MCR 3.963(B)(1) reflects the reality that Family Division judges or referees are not always presented with a petition when a request is made to remove a child from the home. In emergency circumstances, a police officer or social worker may seek the court's permission to remove a child from a home, but will not have an opportunity to draft a petition before seeking the child's removal. Other changes require orders authorizing the removal of a child to be in writing. The amendment also clarifies that the court should make a "reasonable efforts" finding at the child's removal, or within 60 days of the child's removal under MCR 3.965. or make a finding that "reasonable efforts" are not required. Revised Paragraph of staff comment as it pertains to Rule 3.965 from order dated October 24, 2006: The amendments of MCR 3.965(D)(2) conform the rule language to that of the recent amendments of the "reasonable efforts" language in MCL 712A.19a, as amended by 2004 PA 473, and make its language consistent with the proposed "reasonable efforts" language in MCR 3.976(B)(1). The amendments add language to clarify that a court can determine that an agency has made reasonable efforts to prevent removal have been made or can determine that reasonable efforts to prevent removal are not required due to aggravated circumstances.
Revised Paragraph of staff comment as it pertains to Rule 3.972 from order dated October 24, 2006: The amendments of MCR 3.972 conform the rule language to the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and foster compliance with the timing requirements of that act, thereby helping to ensure that children increase the possibility that children in foster care will receive federal funding. The amendments require that a review hearing be held within 182 days of a child's removal from the home, even if the trial in the proceeding has not been completed.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on these proposals may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by May 1, 2007, at PO. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2005-04. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/ resources/administrative/index.htm.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF RULE 5.307 OF THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES. On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amending Rule 5.307 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted on the Court's website at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below]
RULE 5.307. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DECEDENT ESTATES.
(A) Inventory Fee. Within 91 days of the date of the letters of authority, the personal representative must submit to the court the information necessary for computation of the probate inventory fee. In calculating the inventory fee, deductions shall be allowed for secured loans on property listed on the inventory, but no other deductions shall be allowed. The inventory fee must be paid no later than the filing of the petition for an order of complete estate settlement under MCL 700.3952, the petition for settlement order under MCL 700.3953, or the sworn statement under MCL 700.3954, or one year after appointment, whichever is earlier.
(B)-(D) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 5.307 would eliminate the ability to reduce the value of property by the amount of secured loans for purposes of determining the inventory fee. The proposed amendment would conform the court rule to the requirement for setting the inventory fee in § 871 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.871, as expressed in Wolfe-Haddad Estate v Oakland Co, 272 Mich App 323 (2006).
The staff comment is published only for the benefit of the bench and bar and is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on these proposals may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by May 1, 2007, at PO. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2006-45. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/ resources/adrministrative/index.htm.