Court Opinion

ID: 9741818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:02:33.911129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.488293
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent.
In construing a statute (or court rule), words are to be given their ordinary meanings unless a different interpretation is indicated. Goethal v Kent County Supervisors, 361 Mich 104, 111; 104 NW2d 794 (1960), Hunn v Madison Heights, 60 Mich App 326, 332; 230 NW2d 414 (1975). Specifically, the word "shall” means that the statute or court rule is mandatory — unless other considerations compel a contrary conclusion. Lundberg v *80Corrections Commission, 57 Mich App 327, 329; 225 NW2d 752 (1975). In the case at bar, a contrary conclusion is indicated.
The Committee Notes to former GCR 1963, 701 begin as follows:
"The rules contain a new provision requiring an appeal bond to be filed. Appeal bonds are presently required by virtue of statutory direction. While the fíling of an appeal bond is directory only, such filing is a requisite to the stay of further proceedings in the lower court.” 3 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 505. (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, the Authors’ Comments to Rule 701, 3 Honigman & Hawkins, supra, p 512, state:
"This requirement of an appeal bond applies to all appeals, whether by claim of appeal, order allowing appeal, or cross appeal. Sub-rule 701.7. It is said to be a ’directory’ requirement, however. See Committee Comment, supra. An improper or insufficient bond is not a jurisdictional defect. The circuit court has jurisdiction of an appeal which has been timely filed with the lower court and for which the fee has been paid. Sub-rule 701.3.” (Emphasis added.)
The above commentaries are based on sound authority. In considering a parallel statutory provision which also directed the filing of a stay bond on appeal, the Supreme Court stated:
"In support of his motion to dismiss appeal from the order dismissing writ of garnishment, defendant points to the requirement of CL 1948, § 650.21 (Stat Ann § 27.2611) for filing of a bond in order to stay proceedings on appeal and says that, because plaintiff has filed no such bond, defendant has properly proceeded to judgment against the garnishee defendant and that, in *81consequence, plaintiffs appeal in regard to the garnishment has become moot. The bond is a prerequisite to stay of proceedings but not to consideration by this Court on appeal of the correctness of the trial court’s order dismissing garnishment.” Beyerlein v Ashburn, 334 Mich 13, 15-16; 53 NW2d 666 (1952). (Emphasis added.)
To the same effect see Michigan Bean Co v Burrell Engineering & Construction Co, 306 Mich 420, 426; 11 NW2d 12 (1943) ("Burrell’s failure to file a supersedeas bond on appeal did not preclude it from appealing, but it did subject itself to the risk of having a writ of execution issued during the time the appeal was pending.”), and Hendricks v McCausey, 299 Mich 157, 160-161; 299 NW 847 (1941).
Based upon these authorities, I would hold that under Michigan law appellant has the right to accept the risk of execution without any further risk that the appeal will be dismissed if no stay bond is filed. I would remand to the circuit court for consideration of the merits of the appeal.