Garnishments after judgment

Court rule affected - MCR 3.101
Admin no. - 2008-41
Issued - 5-19-09
Effective - 9-1-09

Makes two amendments to the cited rule.

Adds a new (H)(1)(c), which states:

A bank or other financial institution, as garnishee, shall not withhold exempt funds of the debtor from an account into which only exempt funds are directly deposited and where such funds are clearly identifiable upon deposit as exempt Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Black Lung benefits, or Veterans Assistance benefits.

The second adds subrule (I)(6):

A bank or other financial institution, as garnishee, shall not withhold exempt funds of the debtor from an account into which only exempt funds are directly deposited and where such funds are clearly identifiable upon deposit as exempt Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Black Lung benefits, or Veterans Assistance benefits.

This directs banks, etc., not to withhold (turn over to the judgment creditor) funds if:

• the funds are exempt
  
• they are directly deposited, and
  
• they are clearly identifiable upon deposit as exempt funds of the categories listed.

The amendment requires that the account include only exempt funds, and requires that they be "clearly identifiable" as such.

E-filing in Midland Circuit

Admin no. - 2002-37, Admin Order 2009-4
Issued - May 19, 2009

Another e-filing pilot project, this time covering asbestos cases in Midland County.

NOI and Affidavit of merit - medical malpractice cases

Court rule affected - MCR 2.112 and 2.118
Admin no. - 2009-13
Effective - 5-1-10

Another amendment dealing with notices of intent and affidavits in medical malpractice cases - see the previous proposal. This one adds a new subsection (L) to 2.112, requiring that:

• Any challenges to the sufficiency of a notice of intent be filed by a defendant on or before the date of filing his first response (answer or motion)
  
• Any challenges to an affidavit of merit or affidavit of meritorious defense, including challenges to the qualifications of the affiant, be filed within 63 days of the filing of the affidavit. If the court finds the affidavit deficient, it shall allow it to be amended unless it finds that amendment would not be justified.
  

It also adds language to 2.118(D) specifying that an amendment of an affidavit of merit or meritorious defense would relate back to the date of the original filing.

Like the previous proposal, this one is designed to neutralize an entire series of rulings from the Supreme Court which have led to dismissals for failure to comply with the affidavit rules.
Link (to proposal)
Link to order adopting