Case Name: 46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2006-08-21
Citations: 476 Mich. 1201
Docket Number: No. 128788
Parties: 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County,
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 476
Pages: 1201–1201

Head Matter:
Opinion Amended August 21, 2006:
46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County,
No. 128788.

Opinion:
On order of the Court, on the Court's own motion, the opinion of July 28, 2006, reported at 476 Mich 131, is amended as follows:
On page 27 of the slip opinion, the third sentence of the first full paragraph which currently reads:
"Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must go back to the county board of commissioners to seek an additional appropriation."
is inconsistent with Administrative Order No. 1998-5. AO 1998-5 states that a trial court may not move funds between line items absent the prior approval of the funding unit in only two situations, in order to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits; or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. For all other transfers between line items, AO 1998-5 merely requires courts to "notify the funding unit... of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer." Thus, the common understanding of the AO has been that a court may transfer funds between line items, thereby exceeding the amount appropriated within one of the lines, absent prior approval of the funding unit — subject to the two exceptions above — as long as it gives notice within 10 days and does not exceed the total appropriation.
Accordingly, the third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 27 of the slip opinion is corrected to read as follows:
"Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must follow the procedures set forth in AO 1998-5."