Proposed SCAO-Approved Court Forms

The following forms and issues will be presented to the Michigan Court Forms Committee at its upcoming meeting and are published for a 30-day comment period to elicit input for discussion by the Committee. All comments received during the comment period will be included in the Committee's agenda materials and mailed to committee members two weeks before the scheduled meeting.

The meeting schedule of the Michigan Court Forms Committee for 2008 is as follows:

• Circuit and District Court Section (includes domestic relations) - Thursday, March 6, 2008
• Friend of the Court Section - Thursday, March 20, 2008
• Probate Court Section - Thursday, September 4, 2008
• Family Division of Circuit Court Section - Thursday, September 18, 2008

Comments may be made by mailing a written letter to SCAO-Approved Court Forms at PO Box 30048, Lansing, Michigan 48909 or by sending an e-mail to CourtFormsInfo@courts.mi.gov. Inquiries may be made by telephoning the Forms Unit at 517-373-4864.

Proposals for March, 2008

Proposals for Circuit and District Court Section
          Published January 18, 2008
          Comment Period Expires February 17, 2008

General Suggestions and Concerns

Declaration Language from MCR 2.114, Proof of Service: MCR 2.107(D) says that proof of service may be by "a statement regarding the service verified under MCR 2.114(B) . . ." This is interpreted to mean the certificate made by the officer should have the declaration, "I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief." The following forms, that were reviewed for minor errors, were found to contain a proof of service that should contain this language if the Committee agrees with the above interpretation: CC 375, CC 375M, CC 376, CC 376M, CC 377, CC 377M, CC 380, CC 380M, CC 381, CC 382, DC 102a, DC 102b, DC 102c, DC 102d, DC 103, DC 107, MC 35, MC 36, MC 37, MC 72, MC 203, MC 302, MC 304, MC 321a, MC 503, and MC 504. There may be other circuit, district, and Michigan court forms that contain a proof of service that are not listed. Also, it was previously agreed that a line for the printed name of the process server should be added to the proof.

Also, MCR 2.114(B)(2) states that "If a document is required or permitted to be verified, it may be verified by . . . including the following signed and dated declaration . . ." There are a number of forms that do not need to be verified, but they contain the declaration. Should the declaration be removed from these forms, especially since verification means personal knowledge of the facts, which an attorney almost always will not have? A plan for handling this may be to determine which pleadings must be verified and remove the declaration from all other forms. A list of the affected forms can be prepared for publication in 2009 and the changes made at that time. Is this an acceptable approach?

Standard Language for Certificate of Mailing/Service: In reviewing the forms for minor errors, it was noted that several different standards have been applied to the Certificate of Mailing/Service. The Committee is asked to determine whether one standard should be applied for the certificate of mailing and another standard for the certificate of service. The following forms contain a certificate of mailing: CC 08, CC 08a, CC 58, CC 80, CC 88, CC 89, CC 257, CC 257a, CC 268, CC 269, CC 378, CC 385, CC 403, CIA 01, CIA 03, CIA 06, DC 44, DC 85, DC 87, DC 90, DC 91, DC 99, DC 99a,
DC 104, DC 105, DC 105a, DC 106, DC 119, MC 07a, MC 25, MC 39, MC 49, MC 51, MC 57, MC 60, MC 61, MC 62, MC 81, MC 274, MC 276, MC 277, MC 278, MC 284, MC 285, MC 286, MC 288, MC 290, MC 301, MC 502, and MC 503. The following forms contain a certificate of service: CIA 02, DC 03, and DC 248. The following forms contain a nonstandard certificate of proof of service instead: CC 79, CC 383, and CC 404. Proposed language for the certificate of mailing is "I certify that on this date I served a copy of this [name of document] on the parties or their attorneys by first-class mail addressed to their last-known addresses." This language would change depending on who is being served (single party versus multiple parties, etc.).

Space on Forms for File/Date Stamp: A request has been made to consider allocating space on all forms used in circuit court (CC and MC) for stamping the file date and time.

Clerk of the Court, Deputy Clerk of the Court, and Court Clerk: There have been questions about the inconsistent use of the designations "clerk of the court," "deputy clerk of the court," "deputy clerk," and "court clerk" beneath the signature lines on some of the forms. There has been a request that a consistent standard be applied. It is recommended that caution be used in this area and that the Committee carefully consider the use of the terms when each form is revised. The Committee made conscious decisions in the past as to when it was appropriate or useful to place one of these captions beneath a signature line. These designations were intended to make it clear whether a clerk other than the clerk of the court may sign a document. The use of the term "deputy clerk" and "deputy clerk of the court" signifies that a clerk has been deputized by the clerk of the court and that the deputy clerk may sign a document on behalf of the clerk of the court. The term "court clerk," however, signifies that this clerk is not deputized and is not the clerk of the court, and therefore, may only sign certain documents, such as a certificate of mailing. The Committee is asked to discuss this issue and to determine the best method for reviewing all of the forms and specifically determining, for the record, the appropriate caption for each form that contains a signature line for a clerk.

back to top

Circuit Court Forms

CC 219b, Judgment of Sentence, Commitment to Department of Corrections: A request has been made by the Department of Corrections to add a check box option for indicating when a conviction requires lifetime electronic monitoring pursuant to MCL 750.520n and MCL 791.285. Proposed language is __ 11. Defendant is subject to lifetime monitoring pursuant to MCL 780.520n and MCL 791.285. Also, a request has been made to add a parenthetical statement to item 3 to remind the judge to order sex offender registration if the defendant has not yet completed the registration and it was not previously ordered. See current form.

CC 257 and CC 257a, Motion for Relief from Judgment: A request has been made to add a signature line at the end of the motion for the defendant to sign as required by MCR 2.114(C). Also, a decision should be made as to which form to retain. Currently, there is a two-page form and a four-page form. It has been suggested that the four-page form is the most useful. See current form CC CC 257a.

CC 268, Order Regarding Driver's License Restoration and CC 269, Order Regarding Driver's License Restoration After Review of the Record: A request has been made to clarify that the note on the back of these forms does not apply to arrests after 10/1/99. Also, it should be made clear when specific cites referenced in the note were in effect since many of them are no longer in effect. This could be done by including the year and public act number so that the previous statutory language can be reviewed. Finally, references to MCL 257.323(6) in items 3a and 4 of CC 269 should be changed to MCL 257.323(4). Drafts are provided.

CC 298, Application for Leave to Appeal and Affidavit Explaining Delay and CC 299, Order Following Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal: The Committee approved development of these forms in 2007 and recommended that drafts be typeset for review at the joint session in 2008. Drafts are provided.

CC 382, Motion and Order to Show Cause for Violating Valid Personal/Foreign Protection Order: A request has been made to add a field for the respondent's date of birth, if known. This information is relevant to LEIN entry and will be placed on either CC 382a or CC 384. When the respondent is not arrested for violating an order, this motion is filed and the court will rely on the petitioner to provide the date of birth if known. A draft is provided.

CC 382a, Order After Hearing on Show Cause for Violating Valid Personal/Foreign Protection Order and CC 384, Order After Hearing on Violation of Valid Personal/Foreign Protection Order: The instruction to the clerk of the court at the foot of the form has been revised to assist in reporting procedures to the Michigan State Police. Drafts are provided. The changes are made in conjunction with a September 27, 2007 memo to the courts from the SCAO, a copy of which is provided.

New Forms for Pro Se Litigants to Obtain Restoration of License: In 2007 the Committee developed and approved petitions and instructions to assist pro se litigants to obtain driver's license restoration. The instructions were not approved by the SCAO because neither statute nor court rule requires the development of pro se packets for this purpose. However, because the forms may be helpful to the legal community, they were published for comment in 2008 to determine interest in approving them for statewide use. The forms, as approved last year, are provided.

CC 23, Order of Removal to District Court: It is recommended this form be deleted because MCR 4.003 was repealed in 1997. Although circuit courts may continue to remove cases to district courts pursuant to local administrative order, this form has no statewide use at this point. Courts who continue the practice through local administrative order can create local orders instead.

back to top

District Court Forms

CIA 03, 14 Day Notice, Civil Infraction: A request has been made to replace item 3 with the following: "The cost to compel appearance may be added to the amount of your judgment." A draft is provided.

CIA 06, Order to Show Cause, Civil Infraction: MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b) says "When a contempt proceeding for disobeying a court order is initiated, the notice or order must be personally delivered to the party, unless the court orders otherwise." Should this form contain language ordering service by mail pursuant to this rule? See MC 230, Order to Show Cause, for an example. Also, it is suggested that this form does not meet the minimum requirements of MCR 3.606. MCL 257.908 specifies the procedures for noncompliance with a judgment, but MCR 3.606 may precede these provisions pursuant to MCR 1.104. Should this form be deleted and MC 230 used in its place, or should CIA 06 be revised? It is suggested that MC 230 be used for all orders to show cause. See current form.

DC 41, Motion and Order to Seize Personal Property Subject to Forfeiture: A request has been made to change the title of this form from a motion to a petition pursuant to MCL 257.625n(4), which says that "Within 14 days after the defendant's conviction for a violation described in subsection (1), the prosecuting attorney may file a petition with the court . . . ." See current form.

DC 84, Affidavit and Claim, Small Claims: The Officer Certificate in the Proof of Service contains reference to the attorney for a party because standard proof of service language was applied to the form. It is recommended this reference be removed. See current form.

DC 85, Judgment, Small Claims: Should this form be amended to comply with the changes made to MC 10 in 2007 with regard to judgment interest? See current form.

DC 90, Petition Regarding Impoundment of Motor Vehicle or Seizure of Motorcycle: A suggestion has been made to add space for the name and address of the towing agency and the secured party as appropriate so that the court will be able to send notice of the hearing to these entities when it is necessary. If the defendant is challenging the reasonableness of towing fees (item 1b is checked), the towing agency rather than the police agency should be notified of the hearing so that it can attend. Likewise, if the vehicle is secured by a third party, the secured party needs to be notified of the hearing because the vehicle could be deemed abandoned and sold. A draft is provided.

DC 247, Department of Natural Resources Complaint, Condemnation and Confiscation, DC 248, Department of Natural Resources Order to Show Cause, Condemnation and Confiscation, and DC 249, Department of Natural Resources Order, Condemnation and Confiscation: A request has been made to change the case name on these three forms from "People of" to "In the Matter of" because condemnation proceedings are not criminal in nature. See also agenda item 2 with regard to the return of service on DC 248. See current form DC 247, DC 248, and DC 249.

DC 250, Felony Register of Actions and DC 251, Misdemeanor Register of Actions: A request has been made to add fields to these forms. A draft is provided.

New Form, Affidavit and Counterclaim, Small Claims: The Committee approved development of this form in 2007 and requested that SCAO draft the form for review in 2008. A draft of the new form is provided.

New Form, Motion, Affidavit, and Order to Set Aside Default/Dismissal: The 46th District Court has requested this new form be considered. There currently exists a motion to set aside default, form DC 99, and an order to set aside default, form DC 99a, so the Committee is asked to consider whether to add language to these forms for setting aside dismissal or whether to alter the draft provided by the 46th District Court.

New Form, Notice of Right to Appellate Review and Request for Appointment of Attorney: A request has been made to create a new form for use pursuant to MCR 6.610(F)(3) and MCR 6.625(B). A draft is provided.

back to top

Michigan Court Forms

MC 01, Summons and Complaint: Several attorneys have requested that this form be renamed "Summons" because the form does not contain any complaint information and it causes confusion for pro se litigants. This same request has been made at other times for similar reasons. The response from our office and the Committee has been that this form contains general information that is required to be in every civil complaint pursuant to MCR 2.113(C). In 1998, a bold statement was added to the form directly after the Summons and in the header of the Complaint. This statement was intended to make clear the additional complaint was still necessary. The statement says: "Instruction: The following is information that is required to be in the caption of every complaint and is to be completed by the plaintiff. Actual allegations and the claim for relief must be stated on additional complaint pages and attached to this form." The Committee is asked to consider whether the current title has created a significant problem and if so, whether to rename the form or otherwise redesign the form for clarity. See the current form.

MC 10, Judgment: A request has been made to allocate more space for specifying payment arrangements under "Other conditions." In the last revision, this space was removed in order to accommodate the details for judgment interest. A draft is provided.

MC 13, Request and Writ for Garnishment (Nonperiodic), MC 14, Garnishee Disclosure, and P-01, Guide to Garnishment of Periodic Payments: A proposal has been received by the Representative Assembly of the Michigan State Bar to include a provision in these forms that expressly directs a bank or a financial institution to protect exempted income from garnishment when that income has been direct-deposited into the bank account from a source that is exempt under federal law. Drafts are provided. Also, The calculation sheet for MC 14 and the related Guide to Garnishment of Periodic Payments (P-01) needs to be amended to comply with the increase in federal minimum wage to $6.55, effective July 24, 2008. See drafts of MC 13, MC 14, and P-01.

MC 15, Motion for Installment Payments: A request has been made to include a copy for the judge in the distribution pursuant to MCR 2.119(A)(2). Apparently, there have been instances where a judge was not provided with a copy even though MCR 3.104(B) requires the clerk of the court to promptly present the motion to the court (judge) after the 14-day period following the service date of the defendant's motion. Would this request resolve the problem, or should instructions to the clerk about the requirement of MCR 3.104(B) be added to the form? Or should this be handled as a training issue by the court where this is a problem? See current form.

MC 39, Judgment, Claim and Delivery: Should this form be amended to comply with the changes made to MC 10 in 2007 with regard to judgment interest? See current form.

MC 96, Judgment of Contempt: It is suggested that a proof of service be created for this form. Is a statement necessary regarding service pursuant to MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b), or is this only for the order to show cause? See current form. See MC 230, Motion and Order to Show Cause, for an example.

MC 216, 14-Day Notice, Traffic and MC 216a, Notice of Noncompliance, Drinking/Driving Offense: A request has been made to add the following language in item 3 of both forms: "and the cost to compel appearance may be added to the amount of your judgment." See drafts.

MC 218, Order Revoking Release and Forfeiting Bond, Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment: A request has been made to increase space for indicating both the date and time of the show cause hearing. A draft is provided.

MC 219, Judgment of Sentence, Commitment to Jail: A request has been made to add a parenthetical statement to item 5 to remind the judge to order sex offender registration if the defendant has not yet completed the registration and it was not previously ordered.

MC 227, Application to Set Aside Conviction and MC 228, Order Regarding Application to Set Aside Conviction: The Michigan State Police request that both forms include advice to the defendant that an order setting aside a conviction does not relieve the defendant from his or her obligations under the Sex Offender Registration Act. If the person was required to register for a given conviction, that requirement remains after the conviction is set aside and, if the person registered as required before an order setting aside the conviction is entered, that person's registration will continue to appear on the public registry. Drafts are provided.

Also, a request has been made to change item 6 on MC 228 to allow for a finding that the court determines that the circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the applicant's conviction to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the conviction, but that setting aside the conviction is not consistent with the public welfare. MCL 780.621(9) indicates that both conditions must be found for the court to set aside a conviction. Because of that, is it necessary to make findings in the negative? It is suggested that the court only need find in the affirmative that both conditions are true. Therefore, it is suggested that item 6 be changed to an option and the following language used in place of the current language: "__ 6. The circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the applicant's conviction to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the conviction and setting aside the conviction is consistent with the public welfare." Then in the order portion of the form, where it states that the application is denied a parenthetical would be added stating: "(If item 6 is not checked, the application must be denied.)"

MC 234, Order for Counseling and Testing for Disease/Infection: A request has been made to remove the asterisks from the references to MCL 750.448 and MCL 750.449 on the reverse side of the form pursuant to MCL 333.5129(1). Although the court is not required to order testing on these two offenses until convicted, the court may order it earlier pursuant to MCL 333.5129(1). A draft is provided.

MC 235, Motion and Order for Destruction of Fingerprints and Arrest Card: The Committee considered the impact of McElroy v Michigan State Police upon this form last year and concluded the form was unaffected by the opinion. However, the Committee is asked to reconsider this decision because an attorney believes the opinion clearly denotes use of this form is inappropriate for any dismissal of any nature. This is based on a view that the court must make a finding of not guilty in order for fingerprints to be destroyed. Therefore, because dismissals are not necessarily the result of a finding of not guilty, the second option in item 1 should be stricken from the form. It is suggested this is not the only interpretation to consider. MCL 28.243(12)(h) could allow for dismissal of a case because a person should not have been charged in the first place and there is no basis for the case. In this instance, if MSP has not already destroyed the fingerprints, the court could order them destroyed by using MC 235. The Committee is asked to review McElroy, the statute, and the form, to make an appropriate determination about proper use of MC 235, and to revise the form as necessary to further clarify its proper use. See current form.

MC 238, Judgment After Bond Forfeiture: A request has been made to consider expanding the use of this form to cover situations where the forfeiture is set aside and to accommodate multiple depositors of 10% bonds. Is there value in this from a statewide perspective? If so, should this form be modified or a separate form created for setting aside forfeiture? See current form.

MC 242, Assignment to Youthful Trainee Status: A request has been made to add a parenthetical statement to item 4 to remind the judge to order sex offender registration if the defendant has not yet completed the registration and it was not previously ordered.

MC 294, Order Delaying Sentence: A request has been made to reword item 7 to "Defendant shall be supervised by _____________________." Also, a request has been made to add a parenthetical statement to item 4 to remind the judge to order sex offender registration if the defendant has not yet completed the registration and it was not previously ordered. See current form.

MC 304, Order for Alternate Service: A request has been made to include an option for denying a motion for alternate service. See current form.

MC 321a, Juror Qualification Questionnaire: It has been suggested that item 12 should say "Are you physically and mentally able to carry out the functions of a juror?" See MCL 600.1307a. See current form.

MC 321b, Juror Personal History Questionnaire: A request has been made to add two new questions: "Are you a U.S. citizen?" and "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" These questions are on the Juror Qualification Questionnaire, but the jury coordinator requesting this revision believes these questions should be asked again because of the increased number of illegal aliens and felons. See current form.

New Form, Civil Summons Third Party: A request has been made to create a civil summons third party form. See sample from another state, which has been provided by the individual making this request.

New Form, Discharge of Judgment Lien: A request has been made to create a discharge of judgment lien. A draft is provided.

back to top

Proposals for Friend of the Court Section
          Published January 18, 2008
          Comment Period Expires February 17, 2008

Declaration Language from MCR 2.114, Proof of Service: MCR 2.107(D) says that proof of service may be by "a statement regarding the service verified under MCR 2.114(B) . . ." This is interpreted to mean the certificate made by the officer should have the declaration, "I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief." The following forms, that were reviewed for minor errors, were found to contain a proof of service that should contain this language if the Committee agrees with the above interpretation: FOC 30, FOC 84. There may be other FOC forms that contain a proof of service that are not listed. Also, it was previously agreed by the Circuit and District Court Section of the Michigan Court Forms Committee that a line for the printed name of the process server should be added to the proof.

Also, MCR 2.114(B)(2) states that "If a document is required or permitted to be verified, it may be verified by . . . including the following signed and dated declaration . . ." There are a number of forms that do not need to be verified, but they contain the declaration. Should the declaration be removed from these forms, especially since verification means personal knowledge of the facts, which an attorney almost always will not have? A plan for handling this may be to determine which pleadings must be verified and remove the declaration from all other forms. FOC forms which contain the declaration are: FOC 13, FOC 13a, FOC 21, FOC 24, FOC 40, FOC 43, FOC 45, FOC 47, FOC 50, FOC 51, FOC 61, FOC 65, FOC 66, FOC 68, FOC 78, FOC 79, FOC 81, FOC 85, FOC 87, and FOC 88.

Standard Language for Certificate of Mailing/Service: In reviewing the forms for minor errors, it was noted that several different standards are still being applied to the Certificate of Mailing. The Committee approved a standard several years ago to be applied to the forms as they are revised. However, even some recent revisions do not use the same language; in some instances this is appropriate, but in others it may not be. The Committee is asked to review all forms containing the Certificate of Mailing to determine the appropriate language for each form. The following forms contain a certificate of mailing: FOC 2, FOC 2a, FOC 5, FOC 7, FOC 10/52, FOC 10a/52a, FOC 10b, FOC 10c, FOC 21, FOC 24, FOC 40, FOC 43, FOC 45, FOC 47, FOC 50, FOC 51, FOC 53, FOC 54, FOC 61, FOC 65, FOC 66, FOC 67, FOC 68, FOC 71, FOC 78, FOC 79, FOC 81, FOC 85, FOC 86, FOC 87, FOC 88, FOC 91, and FOC 92. Proposed language for the certificate of mailing is "I certify that on this date I served a copy of this [name of document] on the parties [and/or] their attorneys by first-class mail addressed to their last-known addresses as defined in MCR 3.203." This language would change depending on who is being served (single party versus multiple parties, etc.).

Standard Masthead: The standard masthead for motions and orders should include a designation for the court address rather than the friend of the court address. Many of the motions and orders contain the incorrect designation and should be modified accordingly. Any form that is filed with the court should also contain the parties' telephone numbers in the case name. Many of these same forms do not include designations for the telephone numbers. The Committee is asked to review these forms to determine if there is any reason the masthead should not be changed. They are FOC 2, FOC 2a, FOC 5, FOC 6, FOC 12, FOC 19, FOC 21, FOC 29, FOC 30, FOC 40, FOC 43, FOC 45, FOC 47, FOC 55, FOC 56, FOC 57, FOC 58, FOC 60, FOC 62, FOC 63, FOC 64, FOC 72a, FOC 84, FOC 85, FOC 86, FOC 87, FOC 88, FOC 89, FOC 94, FOC 95, FOC 99, and FOC 99a.

FOC 1a, Friend of the Court Grievance: A request has been made to advise the complainant to contact the friend of the court if the complainant wants to file a grievance with a local citizen advisory committee because not every county has a citizen advisory committee. See current form.

FOC 6, Enforcement Order: The "payable" line in item 12 used to say "immediately," but it was changed to a blank line in 1988. Is it unclear that this line is intended for indicating the frequency with which payment is to be made? See current form.

FOC 8, Order for Release for Work or to Seek Work: Is it preferable to replace the term "inmate" with the term "respondent" in items 5a through 5i and item 6? See current form.

FOC 10/52, Uniform Child Support Order and FOC 10a/52a, Uniform Child Support Order, No Friend of Court Services: Draft revisions are provided based on upcoming revisions to the Child Support Formula, effective October 1, 2008. Also for discussion is a request considered by the committee last year, but which had not been published for comment. The requester, Keith Heiber of Lapeer, Michigan, asked that his concerns be published for comment and his request reconsidered by the committee. A follow-up e-mail from Mr. Heiber regarding the interpretation of MCL 552.605b is provided. The committee had responded at its 2007 meeting that the language on the form is an appropriate interpretation of the law. See current forms FOC 10/52 and FOC 10a/52a. Finally, it is suggested that friends of the court are required to attach calculations to the order when the order serves as the recommendation pursuant to MCL 552.505(1)(h) and/or MCL 552.517b. Therefore, the check box option at the top of the order should include the following parenthetical statement: "(Attached are the calculations.)."

FOC 10b, Uniform Spousal Support Order and FOC 10c, Uniform Spousal Support Order, No Friend of the Court Services: A request has been made to add signature lines for attorneys when the order is the result of a stipulation. See current forms FOC 10b and FOC 10c.

FOC 13a, Complaint for Enforcement of Health Care Expense Payment: Should item 2 be changed to say, "This request is for expenses that are more than the ordinary medical amount that can be collected as specified in my support order?" See current form.

FOC 19, Motion and Order to Show Cause for Contempt (Custody/Parenting Time): MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b) says "When a contempt proceeding for disobeying a court order is initiated, the notice or order must be personally delivered to the party, unless the court orders otherwise." Should this form contain language ordering service by mail pursuant to this rule? See MC 230, Order to Show Cause, for an example. See current form.

FOC 22, FOC 22a, Employer's Disclosure of Income and Health Insurance Information: A request has been made to add a field for the employer's federal identification number. Also, would it be helpful to remove reference to "Income" from the title of FOC 22a and add a distribution reference for "Copy for Department of Human Services," since that is the purpose of FOC 22a? See current forms FOC 22 and FOC 22a.

FOC 63, Agreement Suspending Immediate Income Withholding and FOC 64, Order Suspending Immediate Income Withholding: A suggestion has been made to update the instructions to keep the friend of the court informed of certain changes in information regarding the parties. See current forms FOC 63 and FOC 64.

FOC 70, Determination on Arrearage: A suggestion has been made to revise the form to comply with the version used by MiCSES. This would involve removing the parenthetical statement about sending a copy of the notice to the payee, adding an account summary (new item 4), and adding an option about intent to levy (new item 8). A copy of the MiCSES form is provided. See current form.

FOC 90, Notice of Lien, FOC 92, Notice to Release Lien, and FOC 93, Notice of Intent to Levy: It has been suggested that references to "child support" be replace with "support" because a lien can also be placed on property for payment of spousal support. See current forms FOC 90, FOC 92, and FOC 93.

FOC 108, Change in Personal Information: A suggestion has been made to modify item 8. A draft is provided.

back to top

Get the latest version of Internet Explorer. Some of the files on this site are PDF files. To view PDF files, you need Acrobat Reader. Download your free copy here.

Questions about this site should be sent to webinfo@courts.mi.gov.
This site was last updated on .