UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Act 195 of 2001
722.1110 Communication between states; participation of parties; “record” defined.
Sec. 110.
(1) A court of this state may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this act.
(2) The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, the parties shall be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.
(3) A communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of that communication.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (3), a record must be made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. Record includes each of the following:
(a) Notes or transcripts of a court reporter who listened to a conference call between the courts.
(b) An electronic recording of a telephone call.
(c) A memorandum or electronic record of a communication between the courts.
(d) A memorandum or electronic record of a communication between the courts that a court makes after the communication.
History: 2001, Act 195, Eff. Apr. 1, 2002
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case:
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Browder, supra; MCL 722.1110; MCL 722.1112. 8 Furthermore, plaintiffs reliance on MCL 722.”
Fisher v. Belcher, 713 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 722.1110 and 722.1206(2). Without defendant’s argument, plaintiffs position required no further elaboration.”
Jeremy Duane Willis v. Christelle Bianco Willis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “MCL 722.1110(1). A record of the communication need not be made if the communication involves “schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters.”
Tina Veneskey v. Michael Keith Sulier (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “MCL 722.1110 contains no penalty for noncompliance with the electronic recording requirement and cannot obviate the court’s conclusions regarding jurisdiction.”
Paul McGrath v. Julia Bressette (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“” MCL 722.1110 governs such communications, providing as follows: (1) A court of this state may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this act.”
Sulier v. Veneskey (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110 (2020) with N.”
Sulier v. Veneskey (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110 (2020) with N.”
Sulier v. Veneskey (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110 (2020) with N.”
Sulier v. Veneskey (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110 (2020) with N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110(1) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110(3) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1110(4) — 2 cases
Tina Veneskey v. Michael Keith Sulier (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“MCL 722.1110 contains no penalty for noncompliance with the electronic recording requirement and cannot obviate the court’s conclusions regarding jurisdiction.”
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.