Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
August 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
3 May 2006 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
128878 Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
46TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
SC: 128878
v COA: 254179
Crawford CC: 02-005951-CZ
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and CRAWFORD
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs,
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
COUNTY OF KALKASKA,
Intervening Defendant,
Counter-Plaintiff, Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
COUNTY OF OTSEGO,
Third-Party Defendant.
_______________________________________
On order of the Court, on the Court’s own motion, the opinion of July 28, 2006 is
amended as follows:
On page 27 of the slip opinion, the third sentence of the first full paragraph which
currently reads:
“Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must go
back to the county board of commissioners to seek an additional
appropriation.”
is inconsistent with AO 1998-5. AO 1998-5 states that a trial court may not move funds
between line items absent the prior approval of the funding unit in only two situations, in
order to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or
benefits; or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. For all
2
other transfers between line items, AO 1998-5 merely requires courts to “notify the
funding unit . . . of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer.” Thus,
the common understanding of the AO has been that a court may transfer funds between
line items, thereby exceeding the amount appropriated within one of the lines, absent
prior approval of the funding unit-- subject to the two exceptions above-- as long as it
gives notice within 10 days and does not exceed the total appropriation.
Accordingly, the third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 27 of the slip
opinion is corrected to read as follows:
“Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must follow
the procedures set forth in AO 1998-5.”
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
August 21, 2006 _________________________________________
t0721 Clerk
46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County
Combined Opinion