Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.321 (2026)

Fees to court of appeals; charge per page; waiver; deposit; costs; use.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.321 Fees to court of appeals; charge per page; waiver; deposit; costs; use.

Sec. 321.

    (1) The following fees shall be paid to the clerk of the court of appeals and may be taxed as costs if costs are allowed by order of the court:

    (a) For an appeal as of right, for an application for leave to appeal, or for an original proceeding, $375.00. This 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.

    (b) Upon the entry of any motion except a motion described in subdivision (c) upon the motion docket, $100.00.

    (c) Upon the entry of a motion for immediate consideration or a motion to expedite appeal upon the motion docket, $200.00. This fee shall be paid only once regardless of the number of lower court files involved in the appeal. A prosecuting attorney is exempt from paying a fee under this subdivision with regard to an appeal arising out of a criminal proceeding.

    (2) The clerk of the court of appeals shall charge 50 cents per page for certified copies of entries or papers in any action or proceedings when required for any other purpose than one connected with the progress or disposition of the action or proceeding.

    (3) The clerk shall charge 50 cents per page for all uncertified copies of opinions, except those sent to 1 counsel representing each party in the case, for which no charge shall be made.

    (4) If a person is unable to pay the fees required by this section, the person, by motion, accompanied by the person's affidavit stating facts showing that inability, may ask the court to waive the fees and the court or a judge of the court may waive payment of the fees.

    (5) Each month the clerk of the court of appeals shall deposit with the state treasurer all fees collected and obtain and file a receipt for the fees deposited.

    (6) Costs shall be awarded in the discretion of the court.

    (7) The fees collected under this section shall be used to fund a probation swift and sure sanctions program created under the probation swift and sure sanctions act, chapter XIA of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771A.1 to 771A.8.

History: Add. 1964, Act 281, Imd. Eff. June 11, 1964 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 248, Imd. Eff. Jan. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 31, 1987 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 277, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1997, Act 182, Eff. Jan. 1, 1998 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 138, Eff. Oct. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 151, Imd. Eff. Sept. 30, 2005 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 326, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2005 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 64, Imd. Eff. Sept. 28, 2007 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 130, Imd. Eff. Sept. 6, 2011 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 617, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: City of Westland v. Kodlowski, 298 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
City of Westland v. Kodlowski, 298 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “We did so because when filing his application from the two separate orders, defendant refused to pay two filing fees, arguing that this Court’s Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) regarding fees applicable to appeals (which requires two separate fees) misinterprets MCL 600.321. 3…”
In Re Thurston, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 600.321; M.S.A. § 27A.321, and the rule establishing the fee schedule for the Supreme Court, MCR 7.”
People v. Shier, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “In contrast, legislation governing the Court of Appeals, *216 MCL 600.321; MSA 27A.321, and the rule establishing the fee schedule for the Supreme Court, MCR 7.”
People of Michigan v. Carlos Alberto Soler-Norona (Mich. 2020). “Because defendant’s motion to waive fees met the requirements of MCL 600.321(4) and MCR 7.219(G), we DIRECT the Court of Appeals to accept defendant’s motion to waive fees; to treat defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal as having been filed with that motion; and to…”
Kathleen C Vanderroest v. Lowell Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “See MCL 600.321(1)(a). See also MCR 7.219(G).”
Robert Davis v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Instead of seeking expedited review, MCL 600.321(1)(c), or immediate consideration, MCR 7.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.321(1)(a) — 2 cases
In Re Thurston, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 600.321; M.S.A. § 27A.321, and the rule establishing the fee schedule for the Supreme Court, MCR 7.”
Kathleen C Vanderroest v. Lowell Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “See MCL 600.321(1)(a). See also MCR 7.219(G).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.321(1)(c) — 1 case
Robert Davis v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Instead of seeking expedited review, MCL 600.321(1)(c), or immediate consideration, MCR 7.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.321(4) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Carlos Alberto Soler-Norona (Mich. 2020). “Because defendant’s motion to waive fees met the requirements of MCL 600.321(4) and MCR 7.219(G), we DIRECT the Court of Appeals to accept defendant’s motion to waive fees; to treat defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal as having been filed with that motion; and to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.321(l)(a) — 2 cases
City of Westland v. Kodlowski, 298 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “We did so because when filing his application from the two separate orders, defendant refused to pay two filing fees, arguing that this Court’s Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) regarding fees applicable to appeals (which requires two separate fees) misinterprets MCL 600.321. 3…”
People v. Shier, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “In contrast, legislation governing the Court of Appeals, *216 MCL 600.321; MSA 27A.321, and the rule establishing the fee schedule for the Supreme Court, MCR 7.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.