House Bill 6033 would revise Michigan’s court process-service fee schedule in the Revised Judicature Act. The bill increases many of the fixed fees that sheriffs, process servers, and other authorized persons may charge for serving summonses, subpoenas, garnishments, eviction papers, seizure orders, and related documents. It also raises certain percentage-based fees tied to seizure and sale of property, increases the fee for incorrect-address service attempts, and updates several smaller verification and mailing-related charges.
The bill also preserves and clarifies existing limits on fees in sensitive cases. It keeps the prohibition on charging petitioners for service in extreme risk protection order cases and maintains the rule that petitioners in personal protection order and foreign protection order proceedings generally cannot be charged for service, while allowing law enforcement agencies to recover up to $50 per completed service from the personal protection order service fund. The bill further retains the rule that any higher fee must be agreed to in writing in advance, and that excess fees cannot be taxed as recoverable costs.
HB6033 would amend MCL 600.2559 to raise statutory service-of-process compensation across a wide range of civil enforcement and court-service activities, affecting sheriffs, process servers, law enforcement agencies, litigants, and parties subject to eviction, garnishment, claim-and-delivery, and seizure proceedings. It would increase the amounts recoverable for service, mileage-related charges, seizure and sale percentages, and certain verification services, while leaving intact the existing liability provisions for overcharging or refusing service after tender. The bill also continues special protections for ERPO and PPO-related service fees and would apply only if companion bills HB 5120 and HB 5121 are also enacted.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or roll-call support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the text, the bill appears to be a technical and fiscal update to fee schedules rather than a policy overhaul, with a likely practical focus on adjusting compensation to current costs. The inclusion of continued fee protections in domestic violence and firearm-risk protection proceedings suggests an effort to balance higher service fees with access-to-justice safeguards.
The main points of potential contention are the across-the-board fee increases and who ultimately bears those costs in civil litigation and enforcement actions. Litigants, defendants in eviction or seizure matters, and agencies that rely on service-of-process may view the higher charges as increasing the cost of accessing or enforcing the courts, while sheriffs and process servers may support the changes as necessary to reflect current service costs. Another possible point of discussion is the bill’s continued exemption of ERPO and PPO petitioners from service charges, with law enforcement reimbursement coming from the PPO service fund, which reflects a policy choice to protect petitioners from direct fees while shifting costs to the state fund.