Court Opinion

ID: 9686172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:32:34.459041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.708803
License: Public Domain

J. C. Timms, J.
(concurring). I reluctantly concur. The majority opinion correctly states the present law and we are bound, by stare decisis, to follow Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97; 92 NW2d 604 (1958). However, I believe Fritts was wrongly decided and results in bad law. The reasons are eloquently stated in the dissenting opinions of Justice Smith and Justice Black.
In essence what Fritts has said is that for a probate court to acquire jurisdiction in a matter of neglected children (1) the proper parties must be before the court, (2) the petition must state facts that are cognizable by the court, and (3) there must be sufficient proofs to support the petition. Without this third additional element, the probate court lacks jurisdiction, and any orders resulting therefrom are void. I can think of no other civil action in which a failure of proofs in support of a complaint will divest a court of jurisdiction when the proper parties are before the court and the subject matter of the complaint is cognizable by that court.
I would urge the Supreme Court to review and reconsider it holding in Fritts, supra.