Court Opinion

ID: 9504175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:48.919382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:53.914556
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the motion for rehearing. As I opined in *1223my concurrence/dissent in People v Monaco, 474 Mich 48, 59-65 (2006), the majority incorrectly determined that felony nonsupport is not a continuing violation.
With respect to the motion to intervene, I concur in the majority’s determination that the motion is unnecessary. The Attorney General asks to join the suit as an intervening plaintiff-appellee. His arguments are framed on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan. But the people are already a party in this case. They are the plaintiff-appellee. Attorney General Michael A. Cox is listed, along with Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Frustaci Adlhoch, as the representative of the people. See Monaco, supra at 48. Because the people are already a party, the Attorney General had no need to resort to MCL 14.28 or 14.101 in order to intervene. Hence, the people already are entitled to file a motion for rehearing, and the Attorney General is entitled to argue the motion.