SUSAN B REDGE V DEPT OF STATE POLICE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SUSAN B. REDGE, f/k/a SUSAN
SCHMITCHEN REDGE,
UNPUBLISHED
September 18, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 276579
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 05-001329-AW
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Talbot and Donofrio, JJ.
TALBOT, J. (concurring)
Although I concur in the final result precluding expungement of plaintiff’s criminal
record, I write separately to address more thoroughly plaintiff’s allegations regarding procedural
irregularities in the dismissal of her writ of mandamus.
On appeal, plaintiff correctly asserts the Ingham Circuit Court improperly permitted
defendant to collaterally attack the validity of the original Lapeer Circuit Court order. As
discussed previously by this Court:
The question of jurisdiction does not depend on the truth or falsehood of the
charges, but upon its nature: it is determinable on the commencement, not at the
conclusion, of the inquiry. [Fox v Martin, 287 Mich 147, 152; 283 NW 9 (1938)
(citation omitted).]
While I believe the defendant could have successfully and, in a procedurally appropriate manner,
secured the setting aside of the Lapeer Circuit Court order based on plaintiff’s fraud or failure to
disclose, I agree with plaintiff that the Ingham Circuit Court erred when it conducted an inquiry
into the underlying validity of the order. Specifically:
Want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from error in the exercise of
jurisdiction. Where jurisdiction has once attached, mere errors or irregularities in
the proceedings, however grave, although they may render the judgment
erroneous and subject to be set aside in a proper proceeding for that purpose, will
not render the judgment void, . . . and cannot be collaterally attacked. Error in
the determination of questions of law or fact upon which the court’s jurisdiction
in the particular case depends, the court having general jurisdiction of the cause
-1-
and the person, is error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to make a
determination is not dependent upon the correctness of the determination made.
[In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 438-439; 505 NW2d 834 (1993) (citation
omitted).]
Hence, while I concur in the final result, I disagree with the majority regarding the propriety of
the actions of the Ingham Circuit Court.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
