Opinion
ORDER
On order of the Court, the motion for full or partial waiver of fees is considered, and it is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Justice, dissenting:
I would grant the motion to waive or defer all or part of the application fees. The four suits involved in this matter were consolidated for one trial. One judgment was entered and there was one appeal taken to the Court of Appeals. We have before us one application for leave. I am persuaded that the Court of Appeals consistently misreads and misuses M.C.L. § 600.321(1)(a); M.S.A. § 27A.321, to require filing fees determined, not by how many judgments are being appealed, but by the number of trial court numbers existing prior to consolidation. This Court, while not governed by that statute, follows the same unjustifiable practice. This practice was articulately decried recently in the State Bar of Michigan's Appellate Practice Section's publication. In part, the editorial stated:
M.C.L. § 600.321(1)(a); M.S.A. § 27A.321, permits the Court of Appeals to collect $200 for appeals of right, applications and original proceedings. The statute specifies that "[t]his fee shall be paid only once for appeals that are taken by multiple parties from the same lower court order or judgment and can be consolidated."
The Court of Appeals apparently reads the statute as though it said "lower court case" and not "lower court order" and as though it said nothing about consolidation. The statute's actual focus on orders makes good administrative sense. No one would argue that a single case filed by multiple parties was subject to multiple fees, no matter how complex the judgment might be. The only difference when separately filed cases are consolidated and decided in a single judgment would seem to be the existence of separate sets of docket entries to the point of consolidation (and possibly thereafter, depending on the degree of consolidation and the practices of the lower court's office).
In any appeal with several appellants, separately represented appellants may file separate briefs. I know of no reason to suspect this happens any more frequently when there are multiple lower court case numbers. Most lawyers understand that deluging any court with repetitive briefs is counter-productive. So, however many case numbers an appeal may have, the appellants usually file one brief, the appellees do the same, and one panel of the court decides the matter with one opinion. This advances "the efficient administration of the appellate process." [State Bar of Michigan Appellate Practice Section Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 5, 11.] I agree and dissent from this Court's order.
MARILYN J. KELLY, J., joins in the statement by MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J.