Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8302

Equitable jurisdiction and authority; injunctive order; order rescinding or reforming contract; equitable claims; judgment or order; jurisdiction and authority of district and circuit courts.

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


600.8302 Equitable jurisdiction and authority; injunctive order; order rescinding or reforming contract; equitable claims; judgment or order; jurisdiction and authority of district and circuit courts.

Sec. 8302.

    (1) In addition to the civil jurisdiction provided in sections 5704 and 8301, the district court has equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court in the matters and to the extent provided by this section.

    (2) In cases brought under chapter 84, the district court may issue and enforce an injunctive order or an order rescinding or reforming a contract.

    (3) In an action under chapter 57, the district court may hear and determine an equitable claim relating to or arising under chapter 31, 33, or 38 or involving a right, interest, obligation, or title in land. The court may issue and enforce a judgment or order necessary to effectuate the court's equitable jurisdiction as provided in this subsection, including the establishment of escrow accounts and receiverships.

    (4) In an action under chapter 87, the district court may issue and enforce any judgment, writ, or order necessary to enforce the ordinance. The grant of equitable jurisdiction and authority to the district court under this subsection does not affect the jurisdiction of the circuit court to do either of the following:

    (a) Hear and decide claims based on nuisance or abate nuisances under section 2940.

    (b) Hear and decide actions challenging the validity or applicability of an ordinance and, in those actions, enjoin a defendant from enforcing the ordinance in the district court or in a municipal court pending the outcome of the action in circuit court.

History: Add. 1980, Act 438, Eff. Sept. 1, 1981 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 12, Eff. May 1, 1994

Compiler's Notes:

    Sections 2 and 4 of Act 438 of 1980 provide:

    “Conditional effective date; action constituting exercise of option; effect of exercising option.

    “Section 2. (1) This amendatory act shall not take effect unless the city of Detroit and the county of Wayne, by resolutions adopted not later than May 1, 1981, by the governing bodies of the city and the county, respectively, agree to assume responsibility for any expenses required of the city or the county by this amendatory act, and the bills listed in enacting section 7 which are enacted and take effect.

    “(2) If the city of Detroit and the county of Wayne, acting through their governing bodies, agree to assume responsibility for any expenses required of the city and the county by this amendatory act, and the bills listed in enacting section 7 which are enacted and take effect, that action constitutes an exercise of the city's and the county's option to provide a new activity or service or to increase the level of activity or service offered in the city of Detroit and the county of Wayne beyond that required by existing law, as the elements of that option are defined by Act No. 101 of the Public Acts of 1979, being sections 21.231 to 21.244 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and a voluntary acceptance by the city and the county of all expenses and capital improvements which may result from establishment of the district court in the thirty-sixth district and the reorganization of the circuit court in the third judicial circuit and the recorder's court of the city of Detroit. However, the exercise of the option does not affect the state's obligation to pay the same portion of each district or circuit judge's salary which is paid by the state to the other district or circuit judges, or to appropriate and disburse funds to the district control units, city, or county, for the necessary costs of state requirements established by a state law, other than this amendatory act or the bills listed in enacting section 7 which becomes effective on or after December 23, 1978.”

    The resolutions referred to in Section 2 were adopted by the city council of the city of Detroit on April 29, 1981, and by the board of commissioners of the county of Wayne on April 30, 1981.

    “Effective date of certain sections.

    “Section 4. Sections 304, 555, 563, 564, 567, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 641, 821, 1114, 1123, 1168, 1302, 1303, 1306, 1417, 1471, 1481, 5706, 8202, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8275, 8281, 8283, 8302, 8314, 8322, 8501, 8521, 8525, 8535, 8621, 9924, 9944, and 9947 shall take effect September 1, 1981.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: the Meisner Law Group v. Weston Downs Condominium Association
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
the Meisner Law Group v. Weston Downs Condominium Association (2017) michctapp · cites it 7× “Plaintiff argues that under MCL 600.8302 and MCL 600.8315, the district court did not have jurisdiction; therefore, jurisdiction lay in the circuit court as the court of general jurisdiction that has jurisdiction in equitable matters except as limited by Michigan's Constitution…”
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2013) michctapp · cites it 5× “In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co. (2016) michctapp · cites it 7× “Citing MCL 600.8302, counsel argued that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction in the summary proceeding to hear and decide all the claims.”
Moody v. Home Owners Insurance (2014) michctapp · cites it 2× “In sum, because the present cases do not involve summary proceedings, the equitable jurisdiction of the district court under MCL 600.8302, or the entry of a stipulated consent judgment, Clohset has no application to the circumstances presented in the instant cases.”
Flynn v Korneffel (1996) mich · cites it 2× “§ 600.8302; M.S.A. § 27A.8302. [19] In a letter addressed to Circuit Court Judge Roland Olzark, District Judge Donald Swank considered the issue to be on appeal to the circuit court.”
Manufacturers Hanover Mortgage Corp. v. Snell (1985) michctapp “Even given the general availability of equitable defenses in foreclosure and summary eviction proceedings, we question whether the "mortgage servicing defense” is one which may be recognized by Michigan courts at all, given the current state of the law.”
Bruwer v. Oaks (1996) michctapp “MCL 600.8302(3); MSA 27A.8302(3). Thus, there appears to *396 be a conflict between the two jurisdictional statutes regarding whether district courts have the jurisdiction to issue a judgment in excess of $10,000 when the case arises under Chapter 57 of the RJA.”
Krajicek v. Justin (1998) mied · cites it 2× “Furthermore, at the time the actions were taken, defendant Sheehy was well within his statutory jurisdiction pursuant to M.C.L.A. §§ 600.”
Constantino v. Michigan Department of State Police (2010) miwd · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8302 (describing district court’s limited equitable jurisdiction).”
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2012) michctapp · cites it 3× “In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
People v. Fiorillo (1992) michctapp “8301; MCL 600.8302; MSA 27A.8302; MCL 600.8306; MSA 27A.”
Gary v. Hixon v. Westwick Square Cooperative (2021) michctapp · cites it 2× “The district court’s jurisdiction over such proceedings is reinforced by MCL 600.8302(1) and (3): 3 The statutes are located in chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8302(1) — 9 cases
the Meisner Law Group v. Weston Downs Condominium Association (2017) michctapp “Plaintiff argues that under MCL 600.8302 and MCL 600.8315, the district court did not have jurisdiction; therefore, jurisdiction lay in the circuit court as the court of general jurisdiction that has jurisdiction in equitable matters except as limited by Michigan's Constitution…”
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2013) michctapp “In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
Moody v. Home Owners Insurance (2014) michctapp “In sum, because the present cases do not involve summary proceedings, the equitable jurisdiction of the district court under MCL 600.8302, or the entry of a stipulated consent judgment, Clohset has no application to the circumstances presented in the instant cases.”
Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co. (2016) michctapp “Citing MCL 600.8302, counsel argued that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction in the summary proceeding to hear and decide all the claims.”
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2012) michctapp “In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8302(3) — 8 cases
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2013) michctapp “In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co. (2016) michctapp “Citing MCL 600.8302, counsel argued that the district court had supplemental jurisdiction in the summary proceeding to hear and decide all the claims.”
Manufacturers Hanover Mortgage Corp. v. Snell (1985) michctapp “Even given the general availability of equitable defenses in foreclosure and summary eviction proceedings, we question whether the "mortgage servicing defense” is one which may be recognized by Michigan courts at all, given the current state of the law.”
Bruwer v. Oaks (1996) michctapp “MCL 600.8302(3); MSA 27A.8302(3). Thus, there appears to *396 be a conflict between the two jurisdictional statutes regarding whether district courts have the jurisdiction to issue a judgment in excess of $10,000 when the case arises under Chapter 57 of the RJA.”
Robert Briggs v. Vanessa Mason (2023) michctapp
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.