Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO COURTS http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4164 (H-2) as adopted on the House floor Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Ryan Berman http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Oversight
Complete to 4-28-21
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4164 would amend Chapter 19A (Electronic Access to Courts) of the Revised
Judicature Act to do all of the following:
• Require a court to allow the public to access, through a website, the register of
documents and digital images of documents filed in that court.
• Require certain courts to accept documents filed by email.
• Revise some provisions to specifically include municipal courts.
Chapter 19A provides for the creation and maintenance of a statewide electronic filing
system by which documents can be filed online in addition to or instead of being filed in
person at a courthouse. State courts may apply to the Supreme Court for access to and use
of the electronic filing system. If the Supreme Court accepts a court, the State Court
Administrative Office (SCAO) is required to use money from the Judicial Electronic Filing
Fund to pay the costs of technological improvements necessary for that court to operate
electronic filing. (The Judicial Electronic Filing Fund receives an electronic filing system
fee collected, in addition to the fee for filing the civil action, when a civil action is
commenced.) Nothing in Chapter 19A may be construed to require a person to file a
document electronically, and a court or court funding unit may not require or allow a person
to file a document electronically except as directed by the Supreme Court.
Access to register of actions and document images
The bill would add a new section to require, by January 1, 2023, and except as otherwise
prohibited by law, a court to make available to the public, through a website, the register
of actions and a digital image of all documents filed in any case in that court. The new
section would not apply to a court document filed before January 1, 2023, unless the court
has previously digitized documents.
The website, register, and digital images would have to be accessible without charge,
without having to register or set up a user account or password, and without having to
submit personal identifying information.
Nonauthorized courts
Under the act, a court may apply to the Supreme Court for access to and use of the
electronic filing system. The bill would require a court that is not an authorized court to
accept the filing of documents through email.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 3
 Municipal courts
Four cities in Michigan operate a municipal court, which has limited powers, instead of a
district court. However, unlike the other courts of the state, municipal courts are not now
referenced in Chapter 19A. The bill would revise the definitions of the following terms:
Clerk, to include a municipal court clerk.
Court funding unit, to include, for a municipal court, the city in which the
municipal court is located.
Electronic filing system, to include a municipal court in the list of courts for which
documents may be filed electronically through the system.
[Note: Among other things, section 1986 of the act specifies the amount a clerk may collect
as an electronic filing system fee when a civil action is commenced. In its current form, the
bill does not amend this section to provide a fee specific to municipal courts.]
MCL 600.1985 and 600.1991 and proposed MCL 600.1991a
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
Currently, although attorneys may file court documents electronically in state courts,
access to digital court documents by attorneys and the public is not universally available
across the state. By contrast, many federal court documents can be accessed electronically
by anyone, for a nominal fee, through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) system. Although attorneys and members of the public may search Michigan
court documents in person at a court, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen
closures of state offices or restrictions on access, as well as hesitancy by some to be in an
indoor setting to obtain documents, underscores the importance of the state to provide a
service similar to the PACER system.
In a separate matter, some courts allow court documents to be filed by fax, but do not accept
documents filed via email. As fax machines are quickly becoming extinct, and almost any
business can be conducted over the internet, some feel that a court that is not currently part
of the statewide e-filing system but accepts filings by fax should be required to also accept
filings sent by email.
House Bill 4164 would address both of the issues described above. However, several
concerns have been raised in opposition. Of primary concern is that full implementation of
the statewide electronic filing system (MiFILE) is still several years out and is unlikely to
be completed before the January 1, 2023, date required under the bill. Since 2017, five pilot
courts and three model courts have transitioned to MiFILE and been testing MiFILE 2.0.
It is expected that a series of probate courts will go online by the end of 2021. Cost and
time challenges are due to the need to transition a multitude of software programs and case
management programs used by the many district, circuit, and probate courts with each other
and the state appellate and supreme court into a single, modern, electronic case
House Fiscal Agency HB 4164 (H-2) as adopted on the floor Page 2 of 3
 management system that is flexible and easily updated. According to information provided
by SCAO, if additional funding of $1.5 million annually were appropriated, with an
additional $3.2 million to further accelerate completion of the project, approximately 90%
of the state courts could be on the MiFILE system by about 2025 (rather than about 2027
without the additional funding). However, making legislative changes that could require
additional software changes when the MiFILE system is still in process of being
implemented could impede the statewide rollout of the e-filing system.
As to requiring courts to accept filings by email, this could increase costs to counties by
requiring additional staff time for county clerk offices to first print email documents and
then file them in a digital format compatible with that court’s system. According to
testimony offered by the Michigan Association of Counties and the Michigan Association
of County Clerks, this would create new burdens, in addition to software and maintenance
costs to create a new, secure online presence, and unless money were appropriated to
counties to cover the implementation of the requirement, the bill would result in an
unfunded mandate on counties at a time when many county budgets are already strained.
FISCAL IMPACT:
House Bill 4164 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on local units of
government. According to SCAO, the costs associated with local trial courts providing
online access to the register of actions and digital images of all documents filed in courts
are not known at this time.
POSITIONS:
The following entities indicated opposition to the bill (3-11-21):
• State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)
• Michigan Municipal League
• Michigan Association of Counties
• Michigan Association of County Clerks
Legislative Analyst: Susan Stutzky
Fiscal Analyst: Robin Risko
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HB 4164 (H-2) as adopted on the floor Page 3 of 3


Statutes affected:
House Introduced Bill: 600.1985, 600.1991
As Passed by the House: 600.1985, 600.1991