Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff//July 30, 2026//
Listen to this article
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a trial court retains discretion to empanel a jury even when neither party properly preserves the constitutional right to a jury trial by complying with the court rules governing jury demands and fees. Because the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked that discretion, the court reversed and remanded
The dispute arose after the plaintiff filed a complaint containing a jury demand but failed to submit the demand in a separate document or timely pay the jury fee required by the Michigan Court Rules. The defendants answered, relied on the plaintiff’s jury demand, and also requested a jury trial if the plaintiff withdrew its demand. For more than two years, the parties proceeded as though the case would be tried before a jury. After discovering that no jury fee had been paid, the plaintiff moved to proceed with a bench trial. Although the defendants paid the jury fee before the hearing, the trial court concluded it lacked authority to empanel a jury and granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals agreed that neither party properly preserved the right to a jury trial. The plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements of MCR 2.508 for demanding a jury, leaving no valid demand upon which the defendants could rely. Nevertheless, the panel emphasized that the failure to preserve the right did not eliminate the trial court’s inherent discretion to order a jury trial
The court rejected language in prior case law suggesting that a party must inquire with the court clerk about payment of the jury fee to preserve the possibility of a jury trial. Instead, it held that whether such an inquiry was made is simply one factor the trial court may consider when deciding whether to exercise its discretion
Because the trial court incorrectly believed it had no discretion to empanel a jury, the appellate court reversed and remanded for the court to determine, after considering all relevant circumstances, whether a jury should be empaneled
The five-page opinion is Nickgrace Inc. v. Gurgul, MiLW No. 07-110918
