Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8420 (2026)

Fees; disposition.

✓ 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


600.8420 Fees; disposition.

Sec. 8420.

    (1) A fee of the following amount, as applicable, shall be charged and collected for the filing of the affidavit for the commencement of any action:

    (a) $25.00, if the amount in controversy does not exceed $600.00.

    (b) $45.00, if the amount in controversy exceeds $600.00 but does not exceed $1,750.00.

    (c) $65.00, if the amount in controversy exceeds $1,750.00.

    (2) A fee in an amount equal to the prevailing postal rate for the service provided shall be charged and collected for each defendant to whom a copy of the affidavit is mailed by the clerk. A fee of $15.00 shall be charged and collected for the issuance of a writ of execution, attachment, or garnishment and for the issuance of a judgment debtor discovery subpoena. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fee or charge shall not be collected by an officer for any service rendered under this chapter or for the taking of affidavits for use in connection with any action commenced under this chapter.

    (3) Of each filing fee under subsection (1)(a) collected within the month, at the end of each month, the clerk shall transmit $11.00 to the treasurer of the district funding unit in which the action was commenced, of which not less than $5.00 shall be used by the district funding unit to fund a drug treatment court if one is planned, established, or operated in that judicial district. If the entire amount attributable to the $5.00 portion is not needed for the operation of a drug treatment court, the balance that is not needed for that purpose shall be used for the operation of the district court. If a drug treatment court is not planned, established, or operated in that judicial district, all $11.00 shall be used for the operation of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall transmit the balance of the filing fee to the state treasurer for deposit in the civil filing fee fund created in section 171.

    (4) Of each filing fee under subsection (1)(b) collected within the month, at the end of each month, the clerk shall transmit $17.00 to the treasurer of the district funding unit in which the action was commenced, of which not less than $5.00 shall be used by the district funding unit to fund a drug treatment court if one is planned, established, or operated in that judicial district. If the entire amount attributable to the $5.00 portion is not needed for the operation of a drug treatment court, the balance that is not needed for that purpose shall be used for the operation of the district court. If a drug treatment court is not planned, established, or operated in that judicial district, all $17.00 shall be used for the operation of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall transmit the balance of the filing fee to the state treasurer for deposit in the civil filing fee fund created in section 171.

    (5) Of each filing fee under subsection (1)(c) collected within the month, at the end of each month, the clerk shall transmit $23.00 to the treasurer of the district funding unit in which the action was commenced, of which not less than $5.00 shall be used by the district funding unit to fund a drug treatment court if one is planned, established, or operated in that judicial district. If the entire amount attributable to the $5.00 portion is not needed for the operation of a drug treatment court, the balance that is not needed for that purpose shall be used for the operation of the district court. If a drug treatment court is not planned, established, or operated in that judicial district, all $23.00 shall be used for the operation of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall transmit the balance of the filing fee to the state treasurer for deposit in the civil filing fee fund created in section 171.

    

    (6) If the affidavit and notice to appear and answer are served by personal service, the person serving the process is entitled to the same fee and mileage as for the service of a summons and complaint out of the district court.

History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 238, Eff. Jan. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 67, Imd. Eff. Apr. 3, 1980 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 278, Eff. Jan. 1, 1985 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 310, Eff. Jan. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 233, Eff. Mar. 31, 1993 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 292, Imd. Eff. Dec. 18, 1992 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 189, Eff. Oct. 8, 1993 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 138, Eff. Oct. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 151, Imd. Eff. Sept. 30, 2005

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, 776 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, 776 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “8410(2) (enforcement of installment payment judgments); MCL 600.8420(1) (fee for issuance of judgment debtor discovery subpoena); and MCL 600.”
In Re Goehring, 457 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Further, several sections of Chapter 84 refer to post-judgment collection proceedings within the small claims division, compelling the conclusion that the Legislature intended small claims "prosecution” and "litigation” to include postjudgment proceedings.”
Kyle Brandon Richards v. Fox Television Station (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “8371, MCL 600.8420, MCL 700.2517, MCL 700.5104, and MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8420(1) — 2 cases
Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, 776 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “8410(2) (enforcement of installment payment judgments); MCL 600.8420(1) (fee for issuance of judgment debtor discovery subpoena); and MCL 600.”
In Re Goehring, 457 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “Further, several sections of Chapter 84 refer to post-judgment collection proceedings within the small claims division, compelling the conclusion that the Legislature intended small claims "prosecution” and "litigation” to include postjudgment proceedings.”
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.