President Deborah L. McNabb Kent County Courthouse 180 Ottawa, NW, Ste. 4400 Grand Rapids, 49503 (616) 632-5144 Vice President Jon T. Ferrier Kent County Courthouse 180 Ottawa, NW, Ste. 4400 Grand Rapids, 49503 (616) 632-5142 Executive Secretary Kenneth D. Randall 42nd Judicial Circuit Midland County 301 W. Main St. Midland, 48640-5183 (989) 832-6803 Recording Secretary Jean L. Dohanyos Oakland County Circuit Court 1200 N. Telegraph Rd., Dept. 452 Pontiac, 48341-0452 (248) 858-0033 Treasurer David T. Elias Macomb County Friend of the Court 40 N. Main, 5th Floor Mt. Clemens, 48043 (810) 469-5754 Immediate Past President Mark D. Sherbow Oakland County Friend of the Court P.O. Box 436012 1200 N. Telegraph Rd., Annex 11 Pontiac, 48341 (248) 975-4448 Board Members Kathleen Oemke Thomas G. Doetsch, Sr. Kathryne A. O'Grady Arthur R. Spears, Jr. Dennis M. Swain Past Presidents Wayne Kristal Jon T. Ferrier Ronald Foon Marie Johnson Hon. Linda Hallmark Wendelyn Machnik Karen Liwienski Vincent Welicka Philip Ingraham Zaira Maio Mark D. Sherbow

June 9, 2003 The Honorable Scott Hummel, State Representative N1197 House Office Building 124 N. Capitol Lansing, MI 48909 Re: HB 4075 Dear Representative Hummel:          At our Board of Directors meeting last month, the Referees Association of Michigan (RAM) voted to support passage of HB 4075, and to recommend expansion of the requirement to pay a motion fee in personal protection order cases to motions to extend, terminate or modify a personal protection order.          We believe that HB 4075 is a step in the correct direction, and that it places litigants in these cases on the same footing as all other persons who come to court, which is only and simply fair.          While some have suggested that the charging of a motion fee of $20.00 to a person who is seeking an order of protection might somehow have a chilling effect on a person's right to ask the Court for protection, this is a spurious argument. Under the Michigan Court Rules, a person who is indigent is entitled to demonstrate their indigency to the Court and request that fees be waived or suspended due to inability to pay. See, MCR 2.002, a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Other than the issue of ability to pay, it appears there is nothing "chilling" about requiring personal protection order applicants to pay the same fee that others seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction must pay.          On the other side of the coin, allowing personal protection orders to be sought without the payment of a motion fee means that they are sought without even the slight deliberation that a fee requirement would suggest to persons seeking to use the Court. Filing for free allows personal protection orders to be sought too freely, and it deprives the Court of a revenue source badly needed in these straitened times for local and State governments. In Kent County, for example, there were approximately 2,200 personal protection orders sought in 2002, all without the payment of a motion fee, eliminating approximately $44,000.00 in revenue that most courts would be loath to give up, if the law treated personal protection order cases like the other matters in Court. Incidentally, approximately one-quarter of these filings were deemed of insufficient merit for the Court to issue a personal protection order. The charging of motion fees in these cases can help to reduce the number of such meritless requests for protection.          Finally, again, referring by example to Kent County, there were approximately 500 motions filed last year to terminate, modify or extend personal protection orders. While HB 4075 does not address the charging of motion fees for such proceedings, RAM believes that logically, and in fairness, motion fees should be charged for such filings, as well, which in Kent County would have produced an additional approximately $10,000.00 in revenues in 2002, if motion fees had been charged.                    RAM is a Special Purpose Organization recognized by the State Bar of Michigan, founded in 1984. RAM represents over one hundred Circuit Court Referees who serve as judicial officers b the Family Division of the Circuit Court, Our members conduct hearings in domestic relations cases, juvenile/children's cases and personal protection order cases, and make recommended dispositions to the Circuit Court which become court orders unless objections are filed and the court rejects the recommended disposition after a hearing is held.          We would be happy to provide further information or assistance on this and other proposed legislation that affect the area of Family Law, and we thank you for your attention and consideration of our positions on HB 4075.                                                       Sincerely,                                                       Kenneth D. Randall                                                       Executive Secretary                                                       Referees Association of Michigan pc: The Honorable Jim Howell,      House Judiciary Committee Chair