Case Name: SAMUEL REITER PAINTING COMPANY v. BILL MIEDLER HOMES, INC.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-11-07
Citations: 87 Mich. App. 75
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2251
Parties: SAMUEL REITER PAINTING COMPANY v BILL MIEDLER HOMES, INC.
Judges: Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 87
Pages: 75–81

Head Matter:
SAMUEL REITER PAINTING COMPANY v BILL MIEDLER HOMES, INC.
Docket No. 77-2251.
Submitted June 12, 1978, at Detroit.
Decided November 7, 1978.
Leave to appeal denied, 406 Mich 911.
Samuel Reiter Painting Company brought an action for fraud in district court against Bill Miedler Homes, Inc., Zeev Miedler, and several other defendants. The district court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against Bill Miedler Homes and Zeev Miedler only. Zeev Miedler appealed to the circuit court. The Oakland Circuit Court, James S. Thorburn, J., upon plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the appeal for the reason that Miedler did not file a bond in an amount equal to one and one-quarter times the amount of the district court judgment. Zeev Miedler appeals by leave granted, alleging that because he does not wish to stay execution on the judgment he should not be required to file a stay bond. Held:
The court rules governing appeals to the circuit court which were in effect at the time of Miedler’s appeal to circuit court were worded in language which indicated an intent to make the provisions mandatory. The filing of a bond in the amount of one and one-quarter times the district court judgment was a requirement for appeal of that judgment. The appeal was therefore properly dismissed.
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, P.J., dissents. He would hold that the word "shall” in the court rules is mandatory unless, other considerations compel a contrary conclusion, and that the appellant here has the right to accept the risk of execution on the judgment without any further risk that the appeal would be dismissed if no stay bond is filed. Judge Kaufman would remand to circuit court for consideration on the merits.
References for Points in Headnotes
20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 86.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 204-208.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 22-25.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1044.
16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law § 485 et seq.
4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 364-374.
Opinion op the Court
1. Appeal and Error — Court Rules — Construction.
The Court of Appeals is required to give words their normal meaning when construing the language of court rules.
2. Words and Phrases — Mandatory Language — Court Rules.
The words "require” and "shall”, and the negative "shall not”, in a court rule indicate an intent to make the provisions of the rule mandatory.
3. Appeal and Error — Circuit Courts — District Courts — Bond— Court Rules — Dismissal op Appeal.
A circuit court properly dismissed an appeal from a district court judgment where the appellant did not file a bond in the amount of one and one-quarter times the amount of the district court judgment as required by the court rules in effect at the time the appeal was taken (GCR 1963, 701.7, 705.9).
4. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection — Similar Circumstances and Conditions.
The right to equal protection of the law is not denied to a person by a state law or course of procedure where the same law or course of procedure would have been applied to any other person in the same state under similar circumstances and conditions.
Dissent by N. J. Kaupman, P.J.
5. Words and Phrases — Statutes—Court Rules — Mandatory Language.
The word "shall” in a statute or court rule means that the provision is mandatory unless other considerations compel a contrary conclusion.
6. Appeal and Error — Circuit Court — District Court — Bond—Dismissal of Appeal.
A party who wishes to appeal an adverse district court judgment to circuit court may do so without ñling a bond to stay execution of the judgment although by doing so he accepts the risk of execution; failure to Me such a bond is not suMcient reason for the circuit court to dismiss the appeal.
Leib & Leib (by Elliot P. Kramer), for plaintiff.
Samuel W. Barr, for defendant Zeev Miedler.
Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On January 13, 1977, a judgment for $3,640.35 was entered against appellant in district court. Appellant appealed the judgment to the circuit court; however, that appeal was dismissed by the circuit court judge on motion of plaintiff because appellant did not file a bond for one and one-quarter times the amount of the district court judgment. We granted leave to appeal.
The circuit judge dismissed appellant's claim of appeal, holding that GCR 1963, 705.9 (repealed July, 1977) and GCR 1963, 701.7 (revised July, 1977) required appellant to file a bond for one and one-quarter times the amount of judgment as a condition of maintaining the appeal in circuit court. Appellant does not wish to stay execution on the district court judgment. He argues that, therefore, he should not be required to file a stay bond. Rather, he asserts that a bond covering the costs of appeal should be the only bond required.
The court rules governing appeals to the circuit court have been amended since appellant filed his claim of appeal in the circuit court. The new rules have prospective effect only. 400 Mich lxix (1977); Moore v Spangler, 401 Mich 360, 368; 258 NW2d 34 (1977). Therefore, we will consider appellant's claim under the court rules in effect at the time appellant filed his claim of appeal. We do not determine whether the same result would follow under the current court rules.
Old Court Rule 705.9 provided in pertinent part:
".9 Appeals; Required Acts of Appellant. In all ap peals, within the time limited for taking an appeal, the appellant shall do the following:
"(a) File in the circuit court a bond as required under subrule 701.7; ." (Emphasis added.)
Old Court Rule 701.7 provided in part:
".7 Bond on Appeal; Stay of Proceedings. Unless exempted by law, the appellant shall file a bond with his claim of appeal, cross appeal, or order following appeal. The bond on appeal
"(1) shall be in a penalty not less than $200 and except for appeals from probate court, if the appeal is by a person against whom a claim has been asserted, it shall be not less than one and one-quarter the amount of the judgment or claim allowed. In appeals from the probate court, the court in which the bond is filed may in its discretion fix the bond in an amount found owing to the estate where a fiduciary's account has been disallowed or a claim has been allowed against a fiduciary incident to his administration of his trust or estate. In judgments for possession of land, the bond shall be in the amount and on the conditions provided for by statute." (Emphasis added.)
In construing these court rules, we are required to give words their normal meaning. Cf. MCL 8.3a; MSA 2.212(1). Old Court Rule 705.9 referred to required acts of appellant and it directed that the appellant shall file a required bond. Old Court Rule 701.7 provided that an appellant shall file a bond and the rule directed that the amount of bond shall not be less than a certain amount.
Both "require" and "shall" indicate an intent to make the provisions mandatory. Smith v School District No. 6, 241 Mich 366, 368-369; 217 NW 15 (1928); Law Department Employees Union v City of Flint, 64 Mich App 359, 368, 235 NW2d 783 (1975). Further, the use of the negative "shall not" also indicates an intent to make the provision mandatory. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins v Wood, 115 Mich 444, 448-449; 74 NW 656 (1898).
In view of the clearly mandatory language contained in the court rules, we hold that the circuit court did not err in requiring a bond amounting to one and one-quarter the amount of the district court judgment.
Appellant argues that the mandatory bond in this case violates the equal protection provisions of the Federal and state constitutions. We reject that contention. The right to equal protection of the law is not denied by a state law or course of procedure where the same law or course of procedure would have been applied to any other person in the same state under similar circumstances and conditions. Moore v Spangler, supra, at 370, citing Tinsley v Anderson, 171 US 101; 18 S Ct 805; 43 L Ed 91 (1898). In the instant case, appellant is not required to do anything not required of all other similarly situated appellants in the circuit court. Therefore, we reject his equal protection argument.
The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
We note that appellant does not allege that he is financially unable to pay the bond and that the bond requirement, therefore, prevents the exercise of his right to appeal.