Opinion
360838
08-17-2022
In re James Ogden
LC No. 05-028672-MI
Brock A. Swartzle Presiding Judge Michael J. Kelly Michelle M. Rick Judges
ORDER
The Court orders that the motion to admit additional evidence with brief on appeal is DENIED. While we respect counsel's concern with candor with this Court the email correspondence she seeks to file is not properly considered in interpreting the Mental Health Code. Contrary to the apparent implication of the motion the relevant intent in interpreting the Mental Health Code (at least where the plain statutory language is not dispositive) is not the intent of the committee that apparently proposed its language to the Legislature, but rather the intent of the Legislature itself when it adopted the Mental Health Code. See, e.g., Ahmed v Tokio Marine America Ins Co, 337 Mich.App. 1, 8; 972 N.W.2d 860 (2021) (paramount rule of statutory interpretation is effecting intent of Legislature). Email correspondence sent to counsel by a member of the committee that apparently assisted in drafting statutory language after the Legislature enacted the relevant statutory language (and, thus, unknown to the Legislature when it enacted the statute) cannot reasonably be considered as indicative of the Legislature's intent.