Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #312880; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Sawyer, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
District Court Jurisdiction in PIP Cases
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s opinion affirming the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of whether it was appropriate for the district court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff for no-fault benefits in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court.
The plaintiff in this case filed a first-party no-fault action against AAA of Michigan in district court to recover attendant care benefits. The jury returned a non-unanimous verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $41,208. The parties stipulated to the entry of judgment on the verdict in the amount of $25,000, the maximum within the district court’s jurisdiction. Defendant then filed a motion for JNOV or transfer on the ground that the plaintiff’s proof showed that the actual amount in controversy was greater than $25,000 as alleged in the complaint. The district court denied defendant’s motion and the circuit court affirmed the district court’s denial, holding that while it is true that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time under MCR 2.116(D)(3), it was disingenuous to ask that the jury verdict be set aside at that time.
In reversing the circuit court, the Court of Appeals first noted that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any point in the proceedings, including after trial. The court then recognized that under MCL 600.8301(1), the “district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.” The court then discussed the recent published Opinion of Moody v Home-Owners Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___ (2014), which held that a district court is duty bound to recognize the limits of its subject matter jurisdiction, and that when the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, the district court must either dismiss the case or transfer it to the circuit court. Based on MCL 600.8301(1) and Moody, the court in this case determined that the circuit court erred in affirming the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion and, accordingly, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded to the district court for dismissal or transfer of the plaintiff’s case.
