Bill
HB 4749
Creates a standalone Ninety-Ninth District Court for Antrim County, with the Antrim probate judge serving as district judge, consolidating probate and district functions.
Status note
- Introduced: March 13, 2025 (Rep. John R. Roth).
- As introduced and in the House Fiscal Agency analysis the bill was described and scheduled for further action. The record provided also shows later legislative actions indicating passage and gubernatorial signature; for clarity this summary distinguishes the bill “as introduced” and key elements of the substitute/enacted text.
What the bill does (purpose)
- Creates a standalone district court for Antrim County (designated the Ninety‑Ninth District Court) and consolidates Antrim County’s district and probate court functions by giving the Antrim County probate judge the jurisdiction, powers, duties, and title of a district judge for Antrim County (in addition to continuing as probate judge).
Key provisions
- Establishes MCL 600.8165: the Ninety‑Ninth District consists of Antrim County and is a district of the first class. Under MCL 600.810a the Antrim probate judge “shall serve as judge” of the Ninety‑Ninth District.
- Amends MCL 600.810a to explicitly add Antrim County to the list of counties where the probate judge also serves as a district judge.
- Amends MCL 600.8151 to address the configuration of the existing 86th District (Grand Traverse/Antrim/Leelanau): the bill adjusts judgeship counts and removes obsolete reduction language so that existing 86th District judges may continue serving and the prior automatic reduction mechanism (triggered by a 2015 retirement) is deleted/updated.
- Amends MCL 600.8176 to provide that the creation/reformation of the new 86th-A/86th-B or the Ninety‑Ninth District does not require the district control unit (local county governing bodies) approval normally required for new judicial districts (i.e., the Legislature’s statutory creation will not be contingent on county resolutions in this instance).
- Effective date: as introduced the bill would take effect Jan 1, 2026. (The substitute/enrolled versions include different enactment timing in the legislative record — see “Procedural timeline” below.)
Who is affected / practical effect
- Antrim County: the county would have its own district court (the 99th), consolidating probate and district judicial functions into a single judge position held by the incumbent probate judge. Local court administration (court staff, facilities, non‑salary overhead) would remain local responsibilities.
- 86th District Court (Grand Traverse/Leelanau and previously Antrim): the bill preserves existing judges currently serving on the 86th and removes obsolete statutory language reducing judgeships that had been triggered previously.
- State: no change in state-paid judge salary obligations (state pays judge salary, payroll taxes, retirement). Local governments continue to pay local overhead and operating costs.
Fiscal impact (summary from House Fiscal Agency)
- Reported as having no net fiscal impact on the state or on local units because: (a) the probate judge’s and district judge’s state salary/benefit costs are the same; and (b) the previously triggered judgeship reduction already occurred in practice (there have been two 86th District judges since 2015), so deletion of that language is fiscally neutral.
- Example figure cited: each probate/district judgeship costs the state ~$205,686 (salary $180,741; payroll taxes ~$12,293; retirement ~$12,652) — paid by the state.
Background / context
- Antrim County had pursued withdrawing from the intercounty operating agreement (IOA) that created the 86th District Court (an intercounty district with Grand Traverse and Leelanau) and had passed county resolutions in 2023 and 2024 seeking a separate consolidated Antrim court. IOAs normally require local county approvals and cost‑sharing; this bill restructures the statutory district map so Antrim has its own district court seat without requiring local approval under the usual process.
Procedural timeline (selected)
- House & Senate committee and floor activity occurred (committee substitute created H‑1). The record provided includes actions through readings, amendments, concurrence, enrollment, and signatures. The substitute text contains an enactment provision with a 12‑month delay or a Jan 1, 2026 effective date in some versions; other legislative entries in the record indicate a gubernatorial signature and an effective date of Sept 1, 2025. Consult the enacted law text (MCL updates) or the Legislature’s website for the final effective date and authoritative codified language.
Relevant statutes amended/added
- Amends: MCL 600.810a, 600.8151, 600.8176.
- Adds: proposed MCL 600.8165 (creates the Ninety‑Ninth District).
Companion bill
- SB 1888 (companion).
Prepared to clarify any of the statutory language changes or to compare the introduced vs. substitute/enacted text line‑by‑line if you want more detail.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
