Court Opinion

ID: 9689275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:26:52.848883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.665437
License: Public Domain

Justice Levin,
concurring in part and dissenting in part in Miller, defined work loss as "income loss, measured by the amount of wages” lost. Id., 574. This definition is consistent with Justice *162Ryan’s. Justices Coleman and Kavanagh concurred in the Levin opinion.
This Court is convinced, therefore, that work-loss benefits as per § 3107(b) are limited to lost wages or salary income. The trial court erred in granting benefits for profit sharing and pension contributions. The circuit court erred by concluding that the substitute health insurance costs were recoverable work-loss benefits.
MCL 600.8301; MSA 27A.8301 provides in part that:
"The district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000.00.”
Plaintiff, in her complaint, claimed damages of $10,000. Defendant does not contend that the district court did not have initial jurisdiction but rather contends that the court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment in an amount in excess of its statutory jurisdictional limit. Zimmer v Schindehette, 272 Mich 407; 262 NW 379 (1935), is cited by defendant for support of its position. Zimmer involved the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. At that time, the justice of the peace had concurrent jurisdiction to the amount of $300. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was indebted in the sum of $350, and the final verdict was for $404.85 and costs. The Court ruled that the judgment rendered by the justice in excess of his jurisdiction was void. Id., 409.
The trial court in this case made an overall award of $17,401.95. In light of our decision regarding work loss, items B, C and F, as designated in the trial court’s award, must be subtracted from *163the overall award. The trial court’s proper award becomes $12,435.95.
This figure includes interest, costs and attorney fees. The no-fault act provides for interest on payments which, under the act, are overdue. MCL 500.3142; MSA 24.13142. The act also provides for attorney fees for either party depending on the conduct of the other party. MCL 500.3148; MSA 24.13148. As a general rule, neither costs, attorney fees nor interest is considered in determining the jurisdictional amount. Courts, 20 Am Jur 2d, §§ 159-163, pp 503-506. When these amounts, designated D, E, H and I, in the trial court’s opinion, are subtracted from the proper award, a proper damage award of $7,746 results.
The court’s damage award was under the $10,-000 amount-in-controversy jurisdictional limitation. We must determine whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant a total award greater than $10,000. Case law, Michigan and national, on this issue is sparse. Defendant argues that Zimmer, supra, voids any judgment in excess of the jurisdictional amount. That interpretation of Zimmer is too broad and fails to take into account the facts of that case. The amount sought and the damages awarded in Zimmer were greater than the amount the justice of the peace had jurisdiction over. We conclude that Zimmer stands for the proposition that a damage award in excess of the jurisdictional amount is void. A valid damage award may be combined with costs, attorney fees and interest to exceed the jurisdictional amount without rendering the excess amount void or depriving the district court of jurisdiction.
The Court is cognizant of the accumulative nature of fees, costs and interest which, to a great extent, are controlled by the defendant’s actions. A *164defendant who refuses to make timely payments should not be allowed to circumvent the district court’s jurisdiction by delaying and increasing the interest charges, thereby yielding a total award greater than $10,000. The decision reached by this Court is both logical and fair.
In this case, the district court items A, D, E, G, H and I are affirmed. The award for the other items is vacated.
No costs, a statutory interpretation being involved.
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.