Datasets:

aidos-lab

/

mich-embeddings-int8-mixed-bread-large

like 0

Follow

aidos-lab 4

By order of Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a pro per supplemental application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplemental application submitted on April 9, 2018, is accepted for filing.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before April 24, 2018.

On order of the Chief Justice, the Oakland Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, shall determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2016 and June 27, 2017 judgments of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals special panel correctly held that there is a conflict between MCL 600.2957(2) and MCR 2.112(K) ; (2) whether, in any event, a party may amend a complaint upon receipt of a notice of nonparty fault without first filing a motion to amend; and (3) if so, whether the amendment relates back to the date the complaint was filed. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration (entitled "emergency decision") is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions to give notice, to review the presentence report, and for immediate relief (entitled "motion for immediate consideration of my application and pending motions") are DENIED. I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to add issues is DENIED; however, this denial is without prejudice to the defendant raising the issues in a motion for relief from judgment under MCR Subchapter 6.500.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. Wilder, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 17, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to strike and the motion for entry of default judgment are DENIED. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion to accept new reply brief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay the writ of garnishment is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand and the motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 6, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for bail is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. Cavanagh, J., did not participate due to her prior relationship with Garan Lucow Miller, P.C.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

(4) Respondent made false statements (a) during court proceedings over which she presided, (b) to the commission while under oath during these proceedings, and (c) while testifying at her deposition under oath in her divorce proceeding (Counts XIII, XIV, and XVII); (5) Respondent was persistently impatient, undignified, and discourteous to those appearing before her (Counts IX, X, and XV); (6) Respondent required her staff members to perform personal tasks during work hours (Count XI); (7) Respondent allowed her staff to work on her 2014 judicial campaign during work hours (Count XII); and (8) Respondent improperly interrupted two depositions that she attended during her divorce proceeding (Count VII). "The purpose of the judicial disciplinary process is to protect the people from corruption and abuse on the part of those who wield judicial power." When evaluating a recommendation for discipline made by the commission, "[t]his Court gives considerable deference to the [commission's] recommendations for sanctions, but our deference is not a matter of blind faith." "Instead, it is a function of the [commission] adequately articulating the bases for its findings and demonstrating that there is a reasonable relationship between such findings and the recommended discipline." "This Court's overriding duty in the area of judicial discipline proceedings is to treat equivalent cases in an equivalent manner and ... unequivalent cases in a proportionate manner." "In determining appropriate sanctions, we seek to restore and maintain the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary and to protect the public." In this case, we adopt the commission's findings of fact because our review of the record reveals that they are amply supported. In addition, we agree with the commission's conclusions of law and analysis of the appropriate sanction. Regarding the commission's conclusions of law, we agree that respondent violated Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B), and 7(B)(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct ; committed misconduct under MCR 9.104(1) to (4) ; engaged in "misconduct in office" and "conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice" under Const. 1963, art. 6, § 30 (2) and MCR 9.205(B) ; and violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, contrary to MCR 9.104(4). Regarding the commission's disciplinary analysis, we agree with the commission that six of the seven factors articulated in In re Brown weigh in favor of a more serious sanction, and we conclude that the sanction we have imposed in this case is proportional to sanctions imposed in other judicial-misconduct cases. We are particularly persuaded that these most severe sanctions are necessary because of respondent's misconduct in making false statements under oath, in tampering with evidence in her divorce proceedings, and in failing to disclose the extent of her relationship with Detective Furlong in People v. Kowalski . We have considered respondent's argument that the participating members of the commission should have disqualified themselves. We find respondent's argument to be without merit. On the basis of the intentional misrepresentations and misleading statements in respondent's written responses to the commission and during her testimony at the public hearing, we find respondent liable under MCR 9.205(B), in an amount subject to review by this Court, for the costs, fees, and expenses incurred by the commission in prosecuting the complaint. We order the commission to submit an itemized bill of costs. The cumulative effect of respondent's misconduct convinces this Court that respondent should not remain in judicial office. Therefore, we remove respondent from office and conditionally suspend her without pay for a period of six years, with the suspension becoming effective only if respondent regains judicial office during that period. Pursuant to MCR 7.315(C)(3), the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the order removing and suspending respondent from office forthwith. Bridget M. McCormack, C.J., David F. Viviano, C.J. Pro Tem, Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh, JJ., concur. EXHIBIT STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION COMPLAINT AGAINST: HON. THERESA M. BRENNAN Formal Complaint No. 99 53rd District Court 224 N. First Street Brighton, MI 48116 DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE At a session of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission held on April 8, 2019, in the City of Detroit PRESENT:1 Hon. Monte J. Burmeister, Chairperson Thomas J. Ryan, Esq., Vice-Chairperson Hon. Karen Fort Hood, Secretary Ari Adler Hon. Jon H. Hulsing Melissa B. Spickler Hon. Brian R. Sullivan I. Introduction The Judicial Tenure Commission of the State of Michigan ("Commission") files this recommendation for discipline against Hon. Theresa M. Brennan ("Respondent"), who at all material times was a judge of the 53rd District Court ("the Court") in the City of Brighton, County of Livingston, State of Michigan. This action is taken pursuant to the authority of the Commission under Article 6, § 30 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, and MCR 9.203. Having reviewed the hearing transcript, the exhibits, and the Master's report, and having considered the oral arguments of counsel, the Commission concludes, as did the Master, that the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed misconduct, including failing to disclose relevant facts regarding her relationship with a lead detective in a criminal case before her, failing to disclose relevant facts regarding her relationship with an attorney representing a litigant in a case before her, failing to immediately recuse herself from her own divorce case, tampering with evidence in her own divorce case, and lying under oath. For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission recommends that the Supreme Court remove Respondent from the office of judge of the 53rd District Court on the basis of her judicial misconduct. In addition, the Commission recommends that the Supreme Court order Respondent to pay costs, fees, and expenses in the amount of $35,570.36 pursuant to MCR 9.205(B), based on her intentional misrepresentations and misleading statements made to the Commission. II. Procedural Background On June 12, 2018, the Commission filed a Formal Complaint against Respondent. On July 23, 2018, the Commission filed its First Amended Complaint against Respondent, alleging (1) failure to disclose the extent of her relationship with Detective Sean Furlong, or to disqualify herself, inPeople v Kowalski, (2) failure to disclose the extent of her relationship with Shari Pollesch and Pollesch's law firm in several cases before her, (3) failure to disclose her relationship with Francine Zysk a/k/a Francine Sumner, or to disqualify herself, in Zysk/Sumner's divorce case, (4) failure to disqualify herself from her own divorce case,Root v Brennan, (5) appearance of impropriety regarding Sean Furlong, (6) appearance of impropriety regarding Francine Zysk, (7) conduct during depositions inRoot v Brennan, (8) failure to be faithful to the law inBrisson v Terlecky, (9) improper demeanor inBrisson v Terlecky, (10) improper demeanor inSullivan v Sullivan, (11) directing staff to conduct Respondent's personal tasks on court time, (12) improper campaign activities, (13) misrepresentations during court proceedings, and (14) misrepresentations to the Commission. The Michigan Supreme Court appointed Hon. William J. Giovan as Master, to conduct a public hearing on the allegations in the Formal Complaint. The Master held an eight-day public hearing on the First Amended Complaint, commencing October 1, 2018. The Commission filed its Second Amended Complaint on October 29, 2018, deleting Count III regarding failure to disclose or disqualify with respect to Francine Zysk and Count VI regarding an appearance of impropriety with respect to Francine Zysk, and adding claims for persistent discourtesy (Count XV), destruction of evidence (Count XVI), and perjury, false statements, and misrepresentations (Count XVII). Due to the additional charges, the Master held an additional day of testimony on November 19, 2018. In the Master's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, issued on December 20, 2018, the Master concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed misconduct in office with respect to all but one count in the Second Amended Complaint.2 The Commission heard objections to the Master's report at a hearing held on March 4, 2019. III. Standard of Proof The standard of proof applicable in judicial disciplinary matters is the preponderance of the evidence standard.In re Ferrara, 458 Mich. 350, 360; 582 N.W.2d 817 (1998). The Examiner bears the burden of proving the allegations in the Complaint. MCR 9.211(A). The Commission reviews the master's findings de novo.In re Chrzanowski, 465 Mich. 468, 480-481; 636 N.W.2d 758 (2001). Although the Commission is not required to accept to the master's findings of fact, it may appropriately recognize and defer to the master's superior ability to observe the witnesses' demeanor and comment on their credibility. Cf.In re Lloyd, 424 Mich. 514, 535; 384 N.W.2d 9 (1986). IV. Findings of Fact The Commission adopts the Master's findings of fact, except where specifically noted below. The Commission highlights and supplements the facts found by the Master, as follows: Count I Failure to Disclose/Disqualify in People v Kowalski In March 2009,People v Kowalski, Case No. 08-17643-FC, in which the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, was assigned to Respondent. Michigan State Police Detective Sean Furlong was the co-officer in charge of the case. Detective Furlong investigated the case, took the defendant's confession, and testified at trial. Before theKowalski case was assigned to Respondent, Respondent told her judicial secretary/court recorder Kristi Cox, that she was sure that Mr. Kowalski was guilty based on a conversation she had about the case with Detective Furlong. Nevertheless, Respondent presided over pretrial hearings in the case, ruling that the defendant's confession was admissible and that a defense expert witness was precluded from testifying at trial regarding false confessions. These rulings were affirmed on appeal. The case was scheduled for trial on January 7, 2013. On January 4, 2013, the assistant prosecutor assigned to the case received a letter from attorney Thomas Kizer, alleging inappropriate contacts between Respondent and Detective Furlong, and between Respondent and Detective Furlong's colleague, Detective Christopher Corriveau. At a pretrial conference in Respondent's chambers on January 4, 2013, the assistant prosecutor and defense counsel advised Respondent of the allegations of inappropriate contact. In response to the allegations, Respondent stated that, while she was friends with the two detectives, there was nothing that required her disqualification. Thereafter, Mr. Kowalski moved to disqualify Respondent from the case. Respondent denied the motion, explaining that, while she was friends with Furlong and Corriveau, the friendships did not affect her ability to fairly decide the case. Chief Judge David Reader later affirmed the denial of the motion to disqualify. At no time did Respondent inform the parties that she had told a member of the her staff that Detective Furlong had persuaded her of Mr. Kowalski's guilt before the case was assigned to her, that she had more than 1500 telephone calls of a social nature with Furlong between July 2008 and the beginning of theKowalski trial, that she was on the phone with Furlong for 1-2 hours every month between November 2011 and the start of theKowalski trial, or that she exchanged approximately 400 texts with Furlong from 2010 until the start of theKowalski trial. The Master concluded that Respondent was engaged in a romantic relationship with Furlong before and during theKowalski case. The Master's finding was based, at least in part, on evidence that Furlong kissed Respondent in her chambers in 2007,3 and evidence that, after theKowalski sentencing, Kristi Cox found Respondent in her office, severely distressed because Furlong had told her that they could no longer be friends. Respondent's distress was so severe that she was unable to take the bench for her afternoon docket. In addition to these incidents, the Master's conclusion was based on evidence that Respondent socialized with Furlong, that she allowed him to use her cottage, that Furlong had been a dinner guest at her home, and that Respondent's husband sometimes gave Furlong his University of Michigan football season tickets at Respondent's urging, as well as evidence of the number of telephone calls and texts between Respondent and Furlong. The Commission finds it unnecessary to determine whether the relationship between Respondent and Furlong was a romantic one. Regardless of whether the relationship was "romantic," as found by the Master, or a close friendship, the evidentiary record shows that Respondent was engaged in what was clearly a very close, personal relationship with Furlong during the relevant time period. The relationship required, at a minimum, that Respondent disclose the fact of her close, personal relationship to the parties in theKowalski case so that the parties could determine whether to move for disqualification under MCR 2.003.4 Count II Failure to Disclose/Disqualify in Cases Involving Shari Pollesch Respondent was a friend of attorney Shari Pollesch, a principal in a law firm located in Brighton, Michigan. Respondent considered Ms. Pollesch one of her best friends. Ms. Pollesch testified that she and Respondent were "close friends," that she had known Respondent for about 25 years, and that "[e]verybody knew" that she and Respondent were longtime friends. During their friendship, Respondent and Ms. Pollesch took ski trips together, participated in a book club, took walks during lunch, and were guests at each other's cottages. In addition, Respondent provided her home for Ms. Pollesch's wedding. Ms. Pollesch provided legal services to Respondent's husband's business, to Respondent's husband, personally, and to Respondent's sister. Ms. Pollesch was one of three friends that submitted a statement to the Judicial Tenure Commission on Respondent's behalf in 2009. Ms. Pollesch appeared as counsel in five cases before Respondent in 2014-2016. Attorneys from Ms. Pollesch's firm appeared before respondent in another five cases. Respondent failed to disclose her close, personal relationship with Ms. Pollesch to the parties in the cases in which Ms. Pollesch or another member of her firm appeared as counsel before Respondent. In addition, Respondent denied motions for disqualification in two cases in which disqualification was sought on the basis of a relationship with Ms. Pollesch, inScheibner v Scheibner, Case No. 13-47392-DM andMcFarlane v McFarlane, Case No. 15-6492-DO. Counts IV and XVI Failure to Immediately Disqualify in Her Own Divorce Case and Destruction of Evidence Respondent's former husband, Donald Root, filed a complaint for divorce from Respondent on or about December 2, 2016. The case was assigned to Respondent under a court policy providing that all "DO" cases were to be assigned to her. Chief Judge David Reader advised Respondent of the filing that day. Respondent did not disqualify herself from the case that day or the following business day, Monday, December 5, 2012. On Tuesday, December 6, 2016, Donald Root filed a Motion for Entry of Ex Parte Mutual Restraining Order Regarding the Duty to Preserve Evidence. Chief Judge Reader instructed his secretary, Jeannine Pratt, to call Respondent to emphasize the immediate need for a disqualification order. Ms. Pratt called Respondent and emailed to her a copy of the ex parte motion and a disqualification order. Ms. Pratt advised Respondent that she would pick up the executed order that afternoon. When Ms. Pratt arrived to pick up the executed order, Respondent told her that she would not be signing the order until she spoke to her attorney. The next day, December 7, 2016, Respondent's office informed Judge Reader that the signed disqualification order was in the court mail. The disqualification order was received by the Howell court on December 8, 2016. Between her learning of the filing of the ex parte motion on December 6, 2016, and the receipt of the disqualification order by the Howell court on December 8, 2016, Respondent attempted to delete information and an email account from her cell phone. On December 8, 2018, Respondent asked her court recorder, Felica Milhouse, to attempt to delete her Hotmail account from the cell phone. Milhouse attempted to delete the account through the phone's settings, but was unsuccessful. Milhouse then conducted a Google search regarding how to delete a Hotmail account from a cell phone. When Milhouse was unable to immediately delete the account, Respondent, who was about to take the bench, directed Milhouse to leave the courtroom and to return to the office after calling the first case to continue to attempt to delete the account. Despite her attempts, Milhouse ultimately was unsuccessful in deleting the account. On or about December 8, 2016, Respondent bought a new cell phone at an AT&T store. At Respondent's request, the AT&T store employee transferred the data from her original phone to her new phone, and had her original phone reset to its factory settings, erasing all data from the original phone. Respondent testified that there were "some glitches" when the contents of the original phone were transferred to the new phone. Respondent then gave the original phone, which now contained no data, to her attorney, without communicating to anyone that she had wiped the data from the original phone. When asked whether she advised anyone that the data from the original phone had been transferred to her new phone, Respondent testified that the issue never came up because the divorce ultimately settled four months later. On November 2, 2018, the parties stipulated to the following facts: When data is copied from the old phone to the new phone, there is not a bit-for-bit copying of the data, and it is likely that some data is not copied. The data that may not be copied includes registry data, metadata, file system data, and database information, all of which are useful to a forensic search of the old phone. Accordingly, it is likely that restoring the old phone to factory settings will result in the loss of forensically useful information, even if the owner of the old phone makes an effort to copy all data from the old phone to the new phone. Once the old phone is reset to factory settings it is no longer possible to determine what data was not copied to the new phone. For instance, if a customer tells the tech to copy everything to the new phone except X, and the tech does that and then resets the old phone to factory settings, it is no longer possible to determine what X was, or that X was not copied. Similarly, if a customer deletes some data from the old phone before giving it to the tech, then asks the tech to copy everything that is on the old phone to the new phone, then the old phone is restored to factory settings, it is no longer possible to determine what the customer deleted from the old phone prior to requesting that data be copied to the new phone. Given these facts, it is more likely than not that Respondent's conduct constituted tampering with evidence, in violation of MCL 750.483a(5)(a). Counts XIII, XIV, and XVII Misrepresentations, False Statements, and Perjury The Master described Respondent's willingness to give false testimony under oath as "breathtaking." The Commission agrees that the evidence shows that Respondent made misrepresentations and false statements with a frequency and intent to deceive that is completely at odds with her position as an officer of the court. While, except where noted, the Commission adopts the Examiner's "Appendix 2 - False Statements," as accurate, as did the Master, it emphasizes the following false and material misrepresentations made by Respondent: A.False Statements Under Oath at Deposition Respondent made false statements under oath while testifying at her deposition in her divorce case. On January 16, 2017, Respondent testified during her deposition that when she asked her staff to attempt to delete her email account from her cell phone, she was speaking only "jokingly." Respondent's testimony was false. Respondent's court recorder, Felica Milhouse, denied that Respondent was joking when she asked Milhouse to attempt to delete the email account. Because she did not believe Respondent's request was a joke, Milhouse attempted to delete the account through the phone's settings and then conducted a Google search regarding how to delete the account. When Milhouse's initial attempts at deleting the account were unsuccessful, Respondent directed Milhouse to leave the courtroom after calling the first case and to return to the office to continue her attempts to delete the account. In addition, research attorney Robbin Pott testified that she overheard Respondent asking her judicial secretary and her court reporter how to delete information from a cell phone. Pott also overheard Respondent asking a police officer, who came in to have a warrant signed, what was the best way to destroy a phone. Pott testified that Respondent's continued requests for advice regarding how to delete information from the cell phone convinced Pott that Respondent was not joking. Further, Respondent eventually admitted in her testimony at the formal hearing that she was sincere in her request that Milhouse attempt to delete the email account from the cell phone. On February 9, 2017, Respondent falsely testified at her deposition that she did not request help with deleting information from her cell phone. The evidence showed that Respondent asked employee Felica Millhouse to help her to delete her email account from the cell phone on December 8, 2016. Respondent testified at her deposition that she did not take any steps to delete information from, or to reset, her cell phone. Contrary to this representation, the evidence showed that Respondent asked an employee of an AT&T store to delete messages from her cell phone on December 8, 2016. Moreover, Respondent acknowledged at the formal hearing that she caused an employee of an AT&T store to transfer all data from the original cell phone to a new cell phone and to then reset the original cell phone to its factory settings, deleting all date from the original phone. B.False Statements During Court Proceedings Respondent minimized her relationship with Detective Furlong during theKowalski case. Respondent's statements during the hearing on theKowalski defendant's motion for disqualification concealed the depth of her relationship with Furlong. Respondent represented on the record that her relationship with Furlong was simply that she was "friends" with him, just as she was friends with the prosecutor or the prosecutor's wife. The extensive evidence presented at the formal hearing regarding the especially close and personal nature of Respondent's relationship with Furlong demonstrates that Respondent's characterization of the relationship was false. Respondent made another false misrepresentation on the record inMcFarlane v McFarlane, over which Respondent presided. TheMcFarlane defendant moved to disqualify Respondent on the basis of her relationship with Shari Pollesch. During April 25, 2017 hearing on the motion, Respondent falsely stated on the record that she had learned that Shari Pollesch provided legal representation to her husband only shortly before her divorce complaint was filed in December 2016. This representation was shown to be false by Respondent's own statement on the record inParker & Parker v Magyari, 53rd District Court Case No. 14-4250-GC, on December 16, 2014, that her "best friend," i.e, Shari Pollesch, provided legal representation to her husband. (Exhibit 2-43). In addition, Respondent's now former husband, Daniel Root, testified that Shari Pollesch began providing legal representation to his business in June 2011 and that he and Pollesch terminated the legal representation when he filed for divorce from Respondent, in December 2016. Root testified that he was "very confident" that Respondent knew that Shari Pollesch represented him. C.Material Misrepresentations to the Commission Respondent made material, false statements, under oath, to the Commission during these proceedings. Respondent made a false and material misrepresentation to the Commission regarding when she learned that Shari Pollesch provided legal representation to her former husband, Daniel Root. Respondent represented to the Commission, under oath, that she learned of Pollesch's representation of Root only shortly before the complaint in her divorce case was filed, in December 2016. This representation was shown to be false by Respondent's own statement on the record inParker & Parker v Magyari, 53rd District Court Case No. 14-4250-GC, on December 16, 2014, that her "best friend," i.e, Shari Pollesch, provided legal representation to her husband. (Exhibit 2-43). In addition, Daniel Root testified that he was "very confident" that Respondent knew that Shari Pollesch represented him. Respondent represented to the Commission, under oath, in both a written response and during testimony at the formal hearing, that she rarely handled warrant requests while on the bench, and that she routinely took officers to her office to sign warrants. Respondent's statements were contradicted by testimony from Kristi Cox that, if a police officer came in for a search warrant when Respondent was on the bench, Respondent would stop the proceedings and handle the search warrant in the courtroom. Felica Milhouse also testified that Respondent normally handled warrants from the bench if an officer came into the courtroom while court was in session. Cox testified that if Detective Furlong came to the courtroom for a search warrant, however, Respondent would declare a recess, take Detective Furlong back to her office, and close the door. Respondent represented to the Commission that she did not text Detective Furlong during theKowalski trial. This representation was shown to be false by telephone records showing that Respondent did, in fact, text Detective Furlong during the trial. See Exhibit I-24. Respondent made a false and material misrepresentation to the Commission that she never allowed campaign work to be done during work hours. The testimony of Kristi Cox and Jessica Sharpe, discussed above, that Respondent worked with them on campaign activities during work hours demonstrated that Respondent knew that her statements to the Commission were false. Counts IX and X Improper Demeanor While the Commission does not adopt the Master's finding that it was "the universal opinion of any witness who testified about the judge's demeanor" that she was consistently abusive to the attorneys, litigants, and witnesses, the Commission does find that a preponderance of the evidence showed that Respondent was persistently impatient, undignified, and discourteous to those appearing before her. Attorneys testifying at the formal hearing indicated that Respondent was routinely disrespectful to attorneys and litigants, and described Respondent's demeanor on the bench as "appalling" and "abusive." One of the attorneys testified that Respondent "would routinely interrupt and basically prevent you from presenting your case to her," and that "[s]he never had the information she needed to make her best decision. I don't think she cared." InSullivan v Sullivan, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 17, 218 (Docket Nos. 330543, 334273), a divorce case over which Respondent presided, the Court of Appeals determined that Respondent's hostility toward counsel was such that "[t]he appearance of justice would be better served if the case is remanded to a different judge." Count XI Directing Employees to Perform Respondent's Personal Tasks The Commission adopts the Master's finding that Respondent committed misconduct by requiring her staff members to perform personal tasks during work hours, noting that "[w]hatever may be the correct standard of what a judge can properly ask of an employee, Judge Brennan went far beyond it." The evidence showed that Respondent required her staff to perform personal tasks during work hours, such as taking her car to the dealership, refueling her car, paying her bills, waiting at Respondent's house for cable television to be installed, and staining the deck of Respondent's home.5 Count XII Improper Campaign Activities The Master concluded that Respondent engaged in misconduct by allowing her staff to work on her 2014 judicial campaign during work hours. Both Kristi Cox and Jessica Sharpe testified that, on one occasion, they assisted Respondent with her campaign by responding to questionnaires from news outlets during work hours. Specifically, Kristi Cox testified that, while some of the work was done in the break room:6 ... it was kind of a joke that we used that we were on break, quote/unquote, and we'd kind of laugh about it and we'd go in there. But it wasn't a 15-minute break. It would be an hour and a half or so while we struggled with the phrasing we were going to use. A thumb drive containing documents Cox worked on for the 2014 campaign, showing that the documents were modified during work hours, was admitted into evidence at the formal hearing (Exhibit 11-1). Sharpe's and Cox's testimony that Respondent was in the room, performing the campaign work along with them, showed that Respondent was aware that her staff members were performing the campaign task during work hours. On another occasion, Sharpe and Cox, along with Respondent, conducted online research in the courtroom regarding "what kind of swag" would be used at a campaign party. On the basis of Sharpe's and Cox's testimony, the Commission concludes that Respondent committed misconduct by allowing her staff to perform campaign tasks during work hours. The Commission is not persuaded by Respondent's argument that she did not violate Michigan's Campaign Finance Act because she was not "a public body or a person acting for a public body." Section 57 of the Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.257(1), provides, in part, as follows: A public body or a person acting for a public body shall not use or authorize the use of funds, personnel, office space, computer hardware or software, property, stationery, postage, vehicles, equipment, supplies, or other public resources to make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of contribution under section 4(3)(a). MCL 169.211(7) defines a "public body" to include "[a]ny other body that is created by state or local authority or is primarily funded by or through state or local authority, if the body exercises governmental or proprietary authority or performs a governmental or proprietary function." The 53rd District Court was created by state authority, MCL 600.8101. In addition, the district court performs a governmental function authorized by Const 1963, Article VI, § 1. Accordingly, the district court is a "public body" within the meaning of the Act. Count VII Conduct During Depositions Respondent improperly interrupted two depositions that she attended during her divorce case. On January 18, 2017, when Detective Furlong, the deponent, testified that that he and respondent had not exchanged any texts or telephone messages during theKowalski trial, Respondent interjected, "We did once." On March 9, 2017, when deponent Francine Zysk began to answer a question regarding an allegation that Respondent was intoxicated in her office, Respondent interrupted, stating "Okay, you need to stop for a minute." She then added, "You are lying. You're such a liar." Respondent's Gender Bias Argument Respondent argues that the Master's findings should be disregarded because they reflect a gender bias. As one example, Respondent cites the Master's use of the term "hottest" to describe a part of the relationship between Respondent and Detective Furlong. While the Commission believes that the Master's choice of words was unfortunate, the issue whether the relationship was of a romantic nature or simply a close friendship does not change the relevant analysis, as noted above. Under either scenario, Respondent did not take actions she was required to take to fulfill her judicial duties. Having considered Respondent's argument, the Commission concludes that the allegations of gender bias do not change the evidentiary record, which supports the bulk of the Master's findings. V. Conclusions of Law Respondent's conduct breached the standards of judicial conduct, and she is responsible for the following: a. Misconduct in office, as defined by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, Article 6, Section 30, and MCR 9.505; b. Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, as defined by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, Article 6, Section 30, and MCR 9.205(B); c. Failure to establish, maintain, enforce, and personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved, contrary to MCJC, Canon 1; d. Irresponsible or improper conduct that erodes public confidence in the judiciary, in violation of MCJC, Canon 2A; e. Conduct involving impropriety and appearance of impropriety, contrary to MCJC, Canon 2A; f. Failure to respect and observe the law and to conduct oneself at all times in a manner which would enhance the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2B; g. Failure to prohibit public employees subject to the judge's direction from doing for the judge what the judge is prohibited from doing under this canon, contrary to Canon 7B(1)(b); h. Conduct that is prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); i. Conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, contrary to MCR 9.104(2); j. Conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals, contrary to MCR 9.104(3); and k. Conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct, specifically MRPC 3.3(a)(1), adopted by the Supreme Court, contrary to MCR 9.104(4); VI. Disciplinary Analysis The Commission concludes that Respondent committed judicial misconduct by failing to disclose the relevant facts regarding her relationship with Detective Furlong and Shari Pollesch and/or failing to disqualify herself, failing to immediately disqualify herself from her own divorce case, tampering with evidence in her divorce case, making false and material misrepresentations to the Commission, testifying falsely under oath in her divorce case, making false statements on the record in cases over which she presided, directing staff to perform campaign activities during work hours, directing staff to perform personal tasks for her during work hours, persistently maintaining an improper demeanor on the bench, and improperly interfering in depositions during her divorce case. Based on its finding of misconduct, the Commission recommends that Respondent be removed from judicial office. This recommendation is based on the following evaluation of the factors set forth inIn re Brown, 461 Mich. 1291, 1292-1293; 625 N.W.2d 744 (1999). A.The Brown Factors (1) Misconduct that is part of a pattern or practice is more serious than an isolated instance of misconduct. The evidence showed that Respondent engaged in a pattern of deceit. Respondent made material misrepresentations during her deposition in her divorce case and in sworn statements to the Commission. In addition, Respondent engaged in deceitful conduct by failing to disclose material facts regarding her relationships with Detective Furlong and Shari Pollesch to parties appearing before her. Respondent attempted to conceal evidence in her divorce proceeding by deleting all data from the cell phone that she turned over to her attorney. Respondent's dishonesty was not an isolated incident, but pervaded her conduct both on and off the bench. InIn re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 637; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017), the Court noted "[t]he fact that a statement may be incorrect does not, by itself, render the statement `false' within the context of a legal proceeding." TheGorcyca decision involved a judge's representation regarding the meaning of a gesture she made with her finger. The representation at issue inGorcyca was isolated and finite in nature. By contrast, the record in the instant case reveals a series of misrepresentations that appear to have been made intentionally as part of a pattern of deceit. In addition to a pattern of deceit, the evidence showed a pattern of Respondent abusing staff, attorneys, and litigants. The firstBrown factor weighs heavily in favor of a more serious sanction. (2) Misconduct on the bench is usually more serious than the same misconduct off the bench. The evidence showed that Respondent engaged in misconduct on the bench. Respondent's failure to disclose the facts of her relationships with Detective Sean Furlong and attorney Shari Pollesch to the parties appearing before her was misconduct on the bench. In addition, Respondent repeatedly mistreated attorneys and litigants appearing before her. The Commission concurs with the Examiner's contention that, while Respondent's failure to promptly disqualify her self from her own divorce proceeding was not misconduct that occurred on the bench, "it is so closely related to her judicial duties as to be inseparable from on-bench conduct." The secondBrown factor weighs heavily in favor of a more serious sanction. (3) Misconduct that is prejudicial to the actual administration of justice is more serious than misconduct that is prejudicial only to the appearance of propriety. "[T]here is not much, if anything, that is more prejudicial to the actual administration of justice than testifying falsely under oath."In re Adams, 494 Mich. 162, 182; 833 N.W.2d 897 (2013). Again, the evidence showed that Respondent lied under oath during her divorce proceeding and in sworn statements to the Commission. In addition, Respondent's failure to disclose her relationship with Detective Furlong, including the fact that she told a staff member that Furlong had convinced her of theKowalski defendant's guilt, prevented the parties from addressing any bias earlier in the case. Similarly, Respondent's failure to disclose her personal relationship with Shari Pollesch to parties appearing before her denied the parties the opportunity to challenge her ability to be impartial. The thirdBrown factor weighs in favor of a more serious sanction. (4) Misconduct that does not implicate the actual administration of justice, or its appearance of impropriety, is less serious than misconduct that does. As discussed above, Respondent's misconduct implicated the actual administration of justice and, therefore, weighs in favor of a more serious sanction. (5) Misconduct that occurs spontaneously is less serious than misconduct that is premeditated or deliberated. In many cases, Respondent's misconduct was premeditated and deliberate rather than spontaneous. Respondent's attempts to tamper with evidence in her divorce case did not occur spontaneously but took place over a period of days. While, after learning of the motion to preserve evidence, Respondent initially asked her staff to attempt to delete an email account from her cell phone, her staff was ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. Respondent eventually succeeded in having all data deleted from the cell phone, and transferred to a new phone, before giving the original phone, which contained no data, to her attorney. As the parties stipulated on November 2, 2018, it is likely that some data was lost during the transfer. From the time she was made aware of her husband's motion to preserve evidence to the time she asked the AT&T store employee to delete all date from the original telephone, Respondent had time to reflect on her actions. Further, Respondent's attempts to mislead the Commission do not appear to have been made spontaneously. Almost certainly, Respondent would have given herself time to reflect on her written responses before submitting them to the Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that these misrepresentations were made spontaneously. While it is not known whether Respondent's false testimony during her divorce deposition and her false statements on the record in cases over which she presided were spontaneous or deliberate, it is likely that Respondent had time to consider her statements and knew that they were false when made. Respondent's failure to disclose her personal relationships with Sean Furlong and Shari Pollesch also appears to have been deliberate. Respondent had the time and opportunity to consider disclosing the relevant information but repeatedly failed to do so. The fifthBrown factor weighs heavily in favor of a more serious sanction. (6) Misconduct that undermines the ability of the justice system to discover the truth of what occurred in a legal controversy, or to reach the most just result in such a case, is more serious than misconduct that merely delays such discovery. Respondent failed to disqualify herself from presiding over a murder trial despite having a close, personal relationship with Detective Furlong, and despite having told a staff member before she was assigned to the case that she believed the defendant to be guilty based on a conversation she had with Detective Furlong. Respondent's failure to disclose her close, personal relationships with Detective Furlong and Shari Pollesch undermined the parties' ability to discover or challenge any bias or partiality. Respondent caused information to be deleted from her cell phone after learning that her husband had filed a motion for preservation of evidence in her divorce case. While Respondent's divorce case ultimately settled, Respondent's destruction of potential evidence in the divorce case with knowledge that a motion for preservation of evidence was pending is a stunning example of misconduct that undermined the ability of the justice system to discover the truth of what occurred in a controversy. Respondent's false and misleading statements made under oath in her divorce proceeding and in these disciplinary proceedings undermined the ability of the justice system to discover the truth of what occurred. The sixthBrown factor weighs heavily in favor of a more serious sanction. (7) Misconduct that involves the unequal application of justice on the basis of such considerations as race, color, ethnic background, gender, or religion are more serious than breaches of justice that do not disparage the integrity of the system on the basis of a class of citizenship. The evidence does not show that Respondent's actions caused the unequal application of justice on the basis of a class of citizenship. Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of a more severe sanction. In sum, our consideration of the totality of all sevenBrown factors weighs in support of the imposition of a more severe sanction. In addition to theBrown factors, the Michigan Supreme Court has consistently concluded that "dishonest or selfish conduct warrants greater discipline than conduct lacking such characteristics."In re Morrow, 496 Mich. 291, 302-303; 854 N.W.2d 89 (2014). Further, inIn re Adams, 494 Mich. 162, 833 N.W.2d 897 (2013), the Court reasoned that a sanction may be less severe where a respondent acknowledges his or her misconduct and is truthful throughout the disciplinary proceedings, but "where a respondent is not repentant, but engages in deceitful behavior during the course of a Judicial Tenure Commission disciplinary investigation, the sanction must be measurably greater." (CitingIn re Noecker, 472 Mich. 1, 18; 691 N.W.2d 440 (2005) (Young, J., concurring)). This principle further supports our conclusion that Respondent's dishonest conduct warrants a more severe sanction where the record shows that Respondent has failed to take responsibility for her misconduct and has attempted to minimize, and to provide false explanations for, her conduct throughout these proceedings. B.The Basis for the Level of Discipline and Proportionality The primary concern in determining an appropriate sanction is to "restore and maintain the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary and protect the public."In re Ferrara, 458 Mich. 350, 372, 582 N.W.2d 817 (1998). In determining an appropriate sanction in this matter, the Commission is mindful of the Michigan Supreme Court's call for "proportionality" based on comparable conduct. Based on the facts, the Commission believes that removal from office is an appropriate and proportional sanction for Respondent's misconduct. The Court has consistently concluded that lying under oath warrants removal from office. SeeIn re Ryman, 394 Mich. 637, 642-643; 232 N.W.2d 178 (1975);In re Loyd, 424 Mich. 514, 516, 535-536; 384 N.W.2d 9 (1986);In re Ferrara, 458 Mich. 350, 372-373; 582 N.W.2d 817 (1998);In re Noecker, 472 Mich. 1, 3, 12-13; 691 N.W.2d 440 (2005);In re Nettles-Nickerson, 481 Mich. 321, 322; 750 N.W.2d 560 (2008);In re Justin, 490 Mich. 394, 396-397; 809 N.W.2d 126 (2012);In re James, 492 Mich. 553, 568-570; 821 N.W.2d 144 (2012). InIn re Adams, 494 Mich. 162, 173; 833 N.W.2d 897 (2013), the respondent signed her attorney's name to a pleading without permission and then filed the pleading in the respondent's divorce case. In addition, the respondent lied under oath in her divorce proceedings and made misrepresentations to the Commission during its investigation.Id. at 171, 175. While the Commission recommended that the respondent be suspended without pay for 180 days and be ordered to pay costs, the Court "[did] not believe that such a sanction would sufficiently address the harm done to the integrity of the judiciary."Id. at 184. Rather, the Court concluded that "because testifying falsely under oath is `antithetical to the role of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law and seek the truth,' (citation omitted), and also because respondent has not demonstrated any apparent remorse for her misconduct and continues to deny responsibility for her actions, we believe that the only proportionate sanction is to remove respondent from office."Id. at 186-187. The Court's statements inAdams leave little doubt that removal from office is the appropriate sanction in this case. In addition to other misconduct, Respondent made intentional and false representations, under oath, during her divorce deposition and during the Commission's investigation and proceedings. Dishonesty in these circumstances erodes the public's confidence in the judiciary,In re Noecker, 472 Mich. 1, 13; 691 N.W.2d 440 (2005), and renders a judge a judge "unfit to sit in judgment of others,"In re Justin, 490 Mich. 394, 424; 809 N.W.2d 126 (2012). Further, Respondent has continued to deny and to minimize her misconduct throughout these proceedings.7 The Commission therefore concludes that Respondent's misconduct warrants removal from office. VII. Assessment of Costs, Fees, and Expenses As noted, the Commission finds that Respondent made intentional misrepresentations and misleading statements to the Commission in her written responses to the Commission and during her testimony at the public hearing. Accordingly, the Commission requests that Respondent be ordered to pay the costs, fees, and expenses incurred by the Commission in prosecuting the complaint. See MCR 9.205(B). The Examiner has submitted an affidavit showing costs, fees, and expenses incurred by the Commission in the amount of $35,570.36. Therefore, the Commission requests an assessment of costs, fees, and expenses in the total amount of $35,570.36. VIII. Conclusion and Recommendation The Commission concludes that Respondent committed misconduct in office by, among other actions, failing to disclose the facts of her relationships with Detective Furlong and Shari Pollesch when warranted, by failing to immediately disqualify herself from her own divorce case, by tampering with evidence in her divorce case, and by making intentionally false and misleading statements on the record in cases over which she presided and during her divorce deposition. In addition, Respondent committed judicial misconduct by making intentional misrepresentations or misleading statements to the Commission in her written responses to the Commission and in her testimony at the public hearing. On the basis of her judicial misconduct, the Commission recommends that Respondent be removed from office and that the removal extend through the next judicial term. In addition, on the basis of the Commission's findings that Respondent made intentional misrepresentations or misleading statements to the Commission and to the Master, the Commission recommends that Respondent be ordered to pay an assessment of costs, fees, and expenses in the total amount $35,570.36. JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION ________ HON. MONTE J. BURMEISTER Chairperson ________ ________ THOMAS J. RYAN, ESQ. HON. KAREN FORT HOOD Vice-Chairperson Secretary ________ ________ ARI ADLER HON. JON H. HULSING ________ ________ HON. BRIAN R. SULLVAN MELISSA B. SPICKLER In re McCree , 495 Mich. 51, 74, 845 N.W.2d 458 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In re Simpson , 500 Mich. 533, 558, 902 N.W.2d 383 (2017) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). In re Morrow , 496 Mich. 291, 302, 854 N.W.2d 89 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). McCree , 495 Mich. at 74, 845 N.W.2d 458 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Respondent has not argued that MCR 9.104, which governs professional disciplinary proceedings before the Attorney Disciplinary Board, is not applicable in this context. Therefore, we need not decide this question. See Simpson , 500 Mich. at 555 n. 26, 902 N.W.2d 383. In re Brown , 461 Mich. 1291, 1292-1293, 625 N.W.2d 744 (1999). We note that we are imposing a six-year conditional suspension effective on the date of this opinion, instead of having the removal extend through the next judicial term as requested by the commission. We are not often confronted with the multifarious acts of misconduct that are present in this case. The individual findings of misconduct range from those warranting the most severe sanction of removal (such as lying under oath) to those that are still unacceptable, but might warrant a lesser sanction (such as respondent's improper demeanor on the bench). But we are not called upon to assess an appropriate sanction for each discrete finding of misconduct. Instead, we must determine the appropriate sanction for all of respondent's misconduct taken as a whole. We note, however, that "[t]his Court has consistently imposed the most severe sanction by removing judges for testifying falsely under oath." In re Adams , 494 Mich. 162, 186, 833 N.W.2d 897 (2013) (citing multiple cases). And we have previously found a conditional suspension appropriate when a judge "has not yet learned from his mistakes and that the likelihood of his continuing to commit judicial misconduct is high." McCree , 495 Mich. at 86, 845 N.W.2d 458. The concurrence questions this Court's power to suspend a judge beyond her current term of office. Because no party has raised those issues here, we decline to address those issues in this case.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 4, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 4, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2019 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Per Curiam. Defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, appeals as of right the trial court's determination that the parties' acceptance of the case evaluation award only resolved the claims that were included in plaintiff's case evaluation summary. Defendant asserts that the trial court misinterpreted MCR 2.403 and neglected to consider controlling caselaw for its decision. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand. Plaintiff, Ryan Vandercook, sued defendant for breach of a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by defendant, seeking to recover no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for expenses, loss of wages, replacement services, and other benefits related to injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident on December 23, 2014. Plaintiff also sought declaratory relief to determine his right to PIP benefits and defendant's right to reduction, set offs, or reimbursements of paid benefits. The case was submitted for case evaluation. Plaintiff's case evaluation summary listed disputed benefits and asserted that defendant owed approximately $93,000 for medical expenses and family-provided attendant care. Defendant stated in its case evaluation summary that it had properly paid all PIP benefits, and defendant challenged numerous categories of benefits and the specific benefits demanded by plaintiff for, among other things, medical services, attendant care, mileage, and wage loss. Defendant further contended that it had overpaid for services, entitling it to reimbursement. Defendant also claimed a right to setoff because plaintiff received government-provided benefits and had the right to receive other government benefits that he refused to take. The case evaluation panel considered the case and unanimously awarded plaintiff $45,000. Plaintiff accepted the award but typed into the form that he accepted the award "as to benefits referenced in Plaintiff's Case Evaluation Summary only. Not including wage loss." Defendant also accepted the award, which-because both parties had accepted-had the effect of settling the case for that amount. See MCR 2.403(M). After notification of the parties' mutual acceptance, defendant moved for clarification from the trial court as to whom the proper payees were for payment of the case evaluation award. Plaintiff responded by arguing that he had limited his case evaluation acceptance to the unpaid bills he had referred to in his case evaluation summary. Plaintiff offered no legal argument and cited no rule, statute, or caselaw for his position. At the hearing on defendant's motion, defendant argued that MCR 2.403 clearly provides that mutual acceptance of a case evaluation award resolves all claims in an action through the date of the case evaluation. Plaintiff countered that he had accepted the case evaluation award with a limited acceptance, which purportedly precluded defendant from refusing to pay plaintiff's providers for those benefits that had accrued and not been in dispute before the date of case evaluation. The trial court denied defendant's motion, ruling that only the claims or damages presented in plaintiff's case evaluation summary were subject to the court rules regarding case evaluation sanctions. The trial court reasoned that "[n]o-fault cases are different because the claim continues to accrue the entire time that the case is pending in some-in some circumstances ...." However, the court did not rely on or even address the portion of MCR 2.403(M)(1) that contains an exception for claims involving PIP benefits that have not accrued at the time of the case evaluation. Consequently, the parties were unable to agree on a proposed order to submit to the trial court for entry because defendant contended that MCR 2.403 and controlling caselaw did not permit a party to limit his or her acceptance to anything other than the entirety of the party's claims asserted in the lawsuit. The parties' failure to agree on the order prompted them each to file motions. Plaintiff moved to set aside the case evaluation, and defendant moved to settle the order and dismiss the case pursuant to MCR 2.403(M). At some point, defendant issued and sent plaintiff a check in the amount of the case evaluation award. At the hearing on the parties' competing motions, plaintiff announced that on the basis of his limited acceptance of the panel's decision, he had filed a separate lawsuit for the PIP benefits that he claimed were not resolved by the case evaluation award. Defendant argued that the court rule and controlling caselaw did not permit plaintiff's separate lawsuit. The trial court ultimately ruled against defendant, reasoning that the parties' case evaluation acceptance had only resolved the claims included in plaintiff's case evaluation summary. Defendant now appeals. "The proper interpretation and application of a court rule is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo." Haliw v. Sterling Hts. , 471 Mich. 700, 704, 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). The interpretation and application of a court rule is governed by the principles of statutory construction, commencing with an examination of the plain language of the court rule. Id. at 704-705, 691 N.W.2d 753. "The intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole." Id. at 706, 691 N.W.2d 753. This Court has explained: The goal of court rule interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the drafter, the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court must give language that is clear and unambiguous its plain meaning and enforce it as written. Each word, unless defined, is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and the Court may consult a dictionary to determine that meaning. [ Varran v. Granneman , 312 Mich. App. 591, 599, 880 N.W.2d 242 (2015) (citations omitted).] Defendant argues that the trial court failed both to follow applicable law and to apply MCR 2.403 correctly. Defendant argues that the trial court, in doing so, denied defendant the finality that case evaluation should afford the parties when they mutually submit the case for case evaluation and accept the case evaluation panel's decision. We agree. MCR 2.403 in relevant part provides: (A) Scope and Applicability of Rule. (1) A court may submit to case evaluation any civil action in which the relief sought is primarily money damages or division of property. * * * (3) A court may exempt claims seeking equitable relief from case evaluation for good cause shown on motion or by stipulation of the parties if the court finds that case evaluation of such claims would be inappropriate. * * * (I) Submission of Summary and Supporting Documents. * * * (3) The case evaluation summary shall consist of a concise summary setting forth that party's factual and legal position on issues presented by the action.... (K) Decision. * * * (2) Except as provided in subrule (H)(3), the evaluation must include a separate award as to each plaintiff's claim against each defendant and as to each cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim that has been filed in the action. For the purpose of this subrule, all such claims filed by any one party against any other party shall be treated as a single claim. * * * (L) Acceptance or Rejection of Evaluation. (1) Each party shall file a written acceptance or rejection of the panel's evaluation with the [alternative dispute resolution] clerk within 28 days after service of the panel's evaluation. Even if there are separate awards on multiple claims, the party must either accept or reject the evaluation in its entirety as to a particular opposing party. The failure to file a written acceptance or rejection within 28 days constitutes rejection. * * * (M) Effect of Acceptance of Evaluation. (1) If all the parties accept the panel's evaluation, judgment will be entered in accordance with the evaluation, unless the amount of the award is paid within 28 days after notification of the acceptances, in which case the court shall dismiss the action with prejudice. The judgment or dismissal shall be deemed to dispose of all claims in the action and includes all fees, costs, and interest to the date it is entered, except for cases involving rights to personal protection insurance benefits under MCL 500.3101 et seq. , for which judgment or dismissal shall not be deemed to dispose of claims that have not accrued as of the date of the case evaluation hearing. (2) If only a part of an action has been submitted to case evaluation pursuant to subrule (A)(3) and all of the parties accept the panel's evaluation, the court shall enter an order disposing of only those claims. The general purpose of case evaluation under MCR 2.403"is to expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial." Magdich & Assoc., PC v. Novi Dev. Assoc. LLC , 305 Mich. App. 272, 276, 851 N.W.2d 585 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, acceptance of a case evaluation award serves as a final adjudication and is therefore binding on the parties, similar to a consent judgment or settlement agreement. Id. at 276-277. In CAM Constr. v. Lake Edgewood Condo. Ass'n. , 465 Mich. 549, 554-555, 640 N.W.2d 256 (2002), the Michigan Supreme Court considered the effect of the parties' acceptance of a case evaluation award pursuant to MCR 2.403(M) on claims that allegedly had not been presented in case evaluation. The plaintiff's complaint alleged four breach-of-contract claims against the defendant, with the fourth based on a separate contract. Id. at 551, 640 N.W.2d 256. The trial court summarily dismissed the fourth count. Id. The case then went to case evaluation, and the parties accepted the award. Id. at 551-552, 640 N.W.2d 256. Following case evaluation, the plaintiff contended that it had reserved the right to appeal the summary dismissal of the fourth count and that the parties' case evaluation acceptance resolved only the first three claims. Id. at 552, 640 N.W.2d 256. The Michigan Supreme Court held that pursuant to MCR 2.403(M)(1), the parties' acceptance resolved all the plaintiff's claims in the action-even those that had been summarily disposed. Id. at 555, 640 N.W.2d 256. The Court explained that "allowing bifurcation of the claims within such actions, as plaintiff suggests, would be directly contrary to the language of the rule." Id. Importantly, the CAM Constr. Court overruled this Court's earlier decisions that had construed MCR 2.403(M)(1) as allowing submission of less than all issues to case evaluation. Id. at 556, 557, 640 N.W.2d 256. The Court explained that "[a]llowing the parties involved in the case evaluation process to make such a showing has no basis in the court rule." Id. at 556, 640 N.W.2d 256. The Court summarized that the "unambiguous language [of MCR 2.403(M)(1) ] evidences our desire to avoid bifurcation of civil actions submitted to case evaluation." Id. at 557, 640 N.W.2d 256. Simply put, "[i]f all parties accept the panel's evaluation, the case is over." Id. As this Court has noted, "the purpose of case evaluation is to resolve the case, not to bifurcate litigation or decide it piecemeal." Magdich & Assoc. , 305 Mich. App. at 280, 851 N.W.2d 585. In this case, the parties agreed to submit the case to case evaluation. Neither party objected to case evaluation under MCR 2.403(C). Further, the trial court did not exempt any aspect of plaintiff's action from case evaluation under MCR 2.403(A)(3). Therefore, the case evaluation panel had the entire case for its consideration and determination. We hold that plaintiff's claims in this action did not consist of a dispute over only some, but not all, no-fault PIP benefits. Plaintiff's complaint nowhere limited the scope of the adjudication to a specific set or list of disputed benefits. In Count I, plaintiff sought money damages for payment of all expenses for his care, recovery, and rehabilitation; for wage loss; and for replacement services and other PIP benefits. In Count II, plaintiff sought a determination of his right to wage-loss benefits, replacement service expenses, medical expenses, no-fault interest, attorney fees, and other benefits allegedly owed by defendant. Plaintiff also sought determination by the trial court of whether defendant could reduce, set off, or seek reimbursement for overpaid PIP benefits. Plaintiff's complaint plainly did not limit his civil action to the benefits he listed in his case evaluation summary. Plaintiff's contention that MCR 2.403 permitted him to limit his acceptance lacks merit. As the Supreme Court's decision in CAM Constr. makes clear, MCR 2.403 does not permit a party in an action involving one plaintiff against one defendant to (1) submit less than all of his or her claims to case evaluation and (2) limit any acceptance. Only in cases involving multiple parties with claims against each other does MCR 2.403(L)(3) give the parties the option to accept all or part of a case evaluation award. The form used for acceptance and rejection also cannot be construed to permit limited acceptances like that attempted by plaintiff. The form very clearly tracks MCR 2.403(L). Therefore, plaintiff had no option or right to limit his acceptance of the case evaluation award. MCR 2.403(M)(1) unambiguously describes the effect of acceptance of a case evaluation award. Upon acceptance by both parties, the trial court must enter judgment or dismiss the action with prejudice, and the judgment or dismissal "shall be deemed to dispose of all claims in the action .... " (Emphasis added.) However, for no-fault cases involving the right to PIP benefits, the trial court's judgment may not dispose of claims that have not accrued as of the date of the case evaluation hearing. But all claims which have accrued at the time of the case evaluation are, as a matter of law, disposed of pursuant to MCR 2.403(M)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff's acceptance of the case evaluation award in this case disposed of all disputes over PIP benefits that had accrued before the date of the case evaluation. Therefore, the trial court improperly allowed plaintiff to limit his acceptance of the case evaluation award in contravention of the plain language of MCR 2.403. Upon both parties' acceptance of the case evaluation award, MCR 2.403(M)(1) required the trial court to enter judgment or dismiss the entire action-not review plaintiff's case evaluation summary and allow him to bifurcate his claims so that he could file another lawsuit for PIP benefits that had accrued before the date of the case evaluation hearing. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Defendant, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. Meter, P.J., and Gadola and Tukel, JJ., concurred. At the time, this Court's ruling in Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 313 Mich. App. 50, 54, 880 N.W.2d 294 (2015), rev'd 500 Mich. 191, 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017), was in effect and provided that medical providers had standing to bring a direct claim against an insurer for payment of no-fault benefits. Defendant explained to the trial court that it did not want to pay plaintiff and still remain liable to plaintiff's medical providers if it did so. The Supreme Court would not reverse Covenant until months later. Those Court of Appeals cases interpreted the prior version of MCR 2.403, which the CAM Constr. Court described as being "less detailed" than the present version. CAM Constr. , 465 Mich. at 556, 640 N.W.2d 256. "MCR 2.403(C)(1) allows a party to file a motion to remove the matter from case evaluation." Magdich & Assoc. , 305 Mich. App. at 280, 851 N.W.2d 585 (emphasis added). Thus, even this provision would not allow plaintiff to only submit some of his nonequitable claims to case evaluation.

On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June 12, 2019.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Legislature to file a reply to the briefs filed in opposition to the constitutionality of 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 and the motion of the Legislature to exceed the page limitation for the reply are GRANTED. The 15-page reply submitted on July 3, 2019, is accepted for filing.

Swartzle, J. An implied warranty, once disclaimed, cannot be revived by the inadequacy of an express warranty's remedy. This rule of law is fatal to plaintiffs' claims of breach of implied warranty under Michigan's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, and thus we affirm summary disposition against plaintiffs. On the matter of taxable costs, we vacate in part the trial court's order taxing costs and remand for correction. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs operate a dairy farm in Eaton County. Land O'Lakes Purina Feeds LLC (defendant) is a Minnesota corporation that manufactures and distributes animal feed and related products. Diversified Farms, LLC (Diversified) is a distributor of those products in Michigan. In July 2008, Diversified executed a Credit Application and Agreement (the Credit Agreement) with defendant that included a disclaimer of warranties and a remedy-limiting provision. Plaintiffs were not parties to the Credit Agreement. In early 2013, plaintiffs entered into an oral contract with Diversified in which Diversified agreed to supply defendant's products to plaintiffs. The two products at issue are a dairy-protein supplement and a dry-cow supplement, which are concentrates that are mixed with grain, haylage, and silage before being fed to dairy cattle. Plaintiffs also purchased from Diversified a salt-and-mineral supplement commonly referred to as "SE-90," which was not defendant's product. SE-90 was provided to the herd on a "free choice" basis, meaning that the cattle could eat as much or as little of it as they wanted. Plaintiffs began to notice that the herd showed signs of sickness a few months after entering the oral contract with Diversified. It was ultimately determined that the herd suffered from iodine toxicity. After performing tests of the feed, plaintiffs concluded that defendant's products sickened the herd. Defendant disagreed, arguing that the iodine toxicity came from another source, likely the SE-90. Plaintiffs sued, alleging that defendant's products caused iodine toxicity in plaintiffs' herd and, as a result, defendant breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that it effectively disclaimed the implied warranties under the following paragraphs of the Credit Agreement: 17. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. SUPPLIER EXCLUDES AND DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO ANY GOODS SOLD TO APPLICANT. THERE ARE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE WARRANTIES EXPRESSLY STATED ON THE FACE OF ANY SUCH PRODUCT. 18. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Applicant's sole and exclusive remedy for claims made against Supplier (including, without limitation, claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability) are limited to the replacement of any products sold or services provided. Supplier is not responsible and Applicant expressly agrees to hold Supplier harmless for any special, indirect, consequential, exemplary, incidental, or additional damages. The Credit Agreement also contained a choice-of-law provision designating Minnesota law as the applicable state law. Applying Michigan's version of the UCC, the trial court found that the disclaimer of implied warranties in paragraph 17 was effective because it adhered to the statutory requirements. Plaintiffs maintained that the remedy limitation in paragraph 18 failed of its essential purpose, thereby invalidating the disclaimer found in paragraph 17 and allowing them to recover under the standard warranty provisions of the UCC. The trial court disagreed, concluding that a failure of a remedy does not revive effectively disclaimed implied warranties. Accordingly, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. After the trial court granted summary disposition, defendant submitted a proposed taxation of costs, requesting $4,982.26. Plaintiffs filed an objection, arguing that the costs requested were not authorized by statute. Defendant filed an amended taxation of costs and sought a revised amount of $3,331.20. Concluding that the amended taxation was authorized and not extraordinary, the trial court taxed costs against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed both rulings of the trial court. II. ANALYSIS A. STANDARD OF REVIEW "A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim and is appropriately granted when, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." TOMRA of North America, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury , 325 Mich. App. 289, 294, 926 N.W.2d 259 (2018). We review de novo issues of statutory and contractual interpretation. Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. , 284 Mich. App. 617, 632, 774 N.W.2d 332 (2009). We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to tax costs for an abuse of discretion. Ivezaj v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 275 Mich. App. 349, 367, 737 N.W.2d 807 (2007). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision falls outside the range of principled and reasonable outcomes." Guerrero v. Smith , 280 Mich. App. 647, 660, 761 N.W.2d 723 (2008). "[W]hether a particular expense is taxable as a cost is a question of law" that this Court reviews de novo. Id . at 670, 761 N.W.2d 723. B. CHOICE OF LAW In a footnote in their appellate brief, plaintiffs argue that this Court should apply Minnesota law to this dispute because of the choice-of-law provision in the Credit Agreement. "When determining the applicable law, the expectations of the parties must be balanced with the interests of the states." Hudson v. Mathers , 283 Mich. App. 91, 96, 770 N.W.2d 883 (2009). "The parties' choice of law should be applied if the issue is one the parties could have resolved by an express contractual provision." Id . This Court, however, will not defer to the parties' choice of law if "(1) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction," "(2) there is no reasonable basis for choosing that state's law," or (3) when applying the chosen state's law "would be contrary to the fundamental policy of a state that has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and whose law would be applicable in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties." Id . at 96-97, 770 N.W.2d 883. The Credit Agreement was executed by defendant, a Minnesota corporation, and Diversified, a Michigan limited-liability company. If defendant and Diversified were the only parties to this dispute, then it appears that there would be little question that Minnesota law would apply per the Credit Agreement's choice-of-law provision. Yet, Diversified was dismissed from the lawsuit, and plaintiffs were not parties to the Credit Agreement. At no time before this appeal have plaintiffs argued that Minnesota law applies to this case. Rather, only after the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition-applying Michigan law-did plaintiffs argue that this state's law was inapplicable. On appeal, plaintiffs have not provided any argument as to why the choice-of-law provision should apply to them despite not being a party to the Credit Agreement. Moreover, plaintiffs do not argue that the choice between Michigan or Minnesota law is outcome-determinative, and, indeed, the two states have both adopted the same model provisions of the UCC at issue here. Compare MCL 440.2316 with Minn Stat 336.2-316. Thus, because Michigan law has been applied from the outset and plaintiffs have not provided any support for their argument that Minnesota law should apply, we apply Michigan law to this dispute. Hudson , 283 Mich. App. at 97, 770 N.W.2d 883. C. EXPRESS WARRANTY Moving to the merits of plaintiffs' claims, plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition because the record shows that defendant breached an express warranty. Plaintiffs did not, however, assert a claim of breach of an express warranty in their complaint, nor did they otherwise raise the issue before the trial court. On appeal, plaintiffs did not include the issue in their statement of questions presented. Therefore, we decline to address the issue in the first instance on appeal. Orion Twp. v. State Tax Comm. , 195 Mich. App. 13, 18, 489 N.W.2d 120 (1992). D. IMPLIED WARRANTIES Plaintiffs' primary argument on appeal is that the limited remedy in paragraph 18 of the Credit Agreement failed of its essential purpose and, as a result, the disclaimers of implied warranties in paragraph 17 were ineffective. Michigan's version of Article 2 of the UCC, MCL 440.2101 et seq ., governs the transactions of the sale of goods. "Every contract for the sale of goods under Article 2 of the [UCC] includes implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose." Lumber Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clarklift of Detroit, Inc. , 224 Mich. App. 737, 739, 569 N.W.2d 681 (1997), citing MCL 440.2314 and MCL 440.2315. "The warranty of merchantability requires that the goods sold be of average quality within the industry. A warranty of fitness for a particular purpose requires that the goods sold be fit for the purpose for which they are intended." Computer Network, Inc. v. AM Gen. Corp. , 265 Mich. App. 309, 316, 696 N.W.2d 49 (2005) (cleaned up). A seller may, however, disclaim either implied warranty, provided that certain statutory requirements are met. MCL 440.2316. Whether a warranty was effectively disclaimed is a question of law for this Court. Lumber Mut. Ins. , 224 Mich. App. at 742, 569 N.W.2d 681. To begin, the parties do not dispute that the disclaimers of implied warranties in paragraph 17 are binding on plaintiffs, even though plaintiffs were not parties to the Credit Agreement. An indirect purchaser, such as plaintiffs here, can acquire no greater implied-warranty rights from the manufacturer than those originally bargained-for by the direct purchaser. While the indirect purchaser could bargain for additional implied warranties from the direct purchaser, those additional rights would have to arise from an agreement between the two purchasers. If the indirect purchaser seeks to enforce the manufacturer's implied warranty, then the indirect purchaser is limited to what the manufacturer and direct purchaser negotiated. See Heritage Resources , 284 Mich. App. at 641 & n. 15, 774 N.W.2d 332. Nor is there any real question that the language of paragraph 17 satisfies the statutory requirements for disclaiming the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. To disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, the language of the disclaimer must mention "merchantability" and be "conspicuous." MCL 440.2316(2). To disclaim the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, "the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous." Id . The title of paragraph 17 is "DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES " and the text of the paragraph is in ALL-CAPS. The first sentence disclaims in plain English the implied warranty of "merchantability" and "fitness for a particular purpose," using those specific terms. The second sentence makes clear that there are "no ... implied warranties." The appropriate terms are used, the operative language is clear and in writing, and the format makes the disclaimers conspicuous. Thus, paragraph 17 adheres to the disclaimer requirements of MCL 440.2316(2). Given this, a claim of breach of implied warranty would appear to be fatally deficient. To counter this conclusion, plaintiffs argue that the implied warranties disclaimed in paragraph 17 were revived by operation of law because the express warranty and remedy provided in paragraph 18 failed of their essential purpose. "[A] warranty fails of its essential purpose where unanticipated circumstances preclude the seller from providing the buyer with the remedy to which the parties agreed, in which event the buyer is entitled to seek remedies under the standard UCC warranty provisions." Severn v. Sperry Corp. , 212 Mich. App. 406, 413-414, 538 N.W.2d 50 (1995). Plaintiffs explain that the feed supplements manufactured by defendant were not realistically subject to replacement because the products were consumed soon after delivery and the products damaged the herd upon consumption. Therefore, plaintiffs conclude that the "limited express warranty" remedy in paragraph 18-the promised replacement of any products sold or services provided-failed of its essential purpose. Plaintiffs argue that this failure revived the otherwise disclaimed implied warranties in paragraph 17. Plaintiffs' argument is without merit. As explained earlier, plaintiffs did not make a breach of express warranty claim below, nor did they preserve the issue for appeal. Instead, they claimed breaches of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. But, to state the obvious, to succeed on a claim of breach of implied warranty, a party must, among other things, be able to point to an actual implied warranty. And here, defendant effectively disclaimed any implied warranty in the Credit Agreement. As a matter of logic, once an implied warranty is effectively disclaimed, there can be no breach of that disclaimed warranty, regardless of whether the remedy for an express or other undisclaimed implied warranty is arguably deficient. See MCL 440.2316 ; UCC § 2-316, official comment 2 (2017) ("If no warranty exists, there is of course no problem of limiting remedies for breach of warranty."). Simply put, once an implied warranty is effectively disclaimed, it cannot be revived by the inadequacy of some other warranty's remedy. When interpreting this state's UCC, we may gain guidance from decisions of other jurisdictions interpreting similar model provisions. Heritage Resources , 284 Mich. App. at 632, 774 N.W.2d 332. Our conclusion is supported by comparable holdings in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., FMC Fin. Corp. v. Murphree , 632 F.2d 413, 420 (C.A. 5, 1980) ("If there is no warranty because of a valid disclaimer, there is no problem of limiting warranty breach remedies."); Ritchie Enterprises v. Honeywell Bull, Inc. , 730 F.Supp. 1041, 1047-1048 (D. Kan., 1990) ("Despite any argument that the limited remedy failed of its essential purpose, plaintiff is bound by the written exclusion of the express and implied warranties, and its only warranty claim is based on the express warranty" in the agreement.); Earl Brace & Sons v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. , 708 F.Supp. 708, 711 (W.D. Pa., 1989) ("There can be no breach where the warranty has been disclaimed ... and no consequential damages where there is no breach."); R.J. Meyers Co. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc. , 885 N.W.2d 429, 439 (Iowa App., 2016) ("[T]he failure of the repair and replace remedy for breach of the express warranty does not revive otherwise disclaimed implied warranties."). In support of their position, plaintiffs rely on two decisions of this Court, Kelynack v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA , 152 Mich. App. 105, 394 N.W.2d 17 (1986), and Severn , 212 Mich. App. 406, 538 N.W.2d 50. Yet, both cases involved the question whether an express warranty covering defective parts with a remedy of repair or replace failed of its essential purpose. Neither decision held that a disclaimed implied warranty could be revived, and thus both decisions are inapposite to plaintiffs' claims here. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendant. E. TAXABLE COSTS Plaintiffs next argue that the trial court erred by allowing defendant to tax costs that were not authorized by the statute. MCR 2.625(A)(1) provides that "[c]osts will be allowed to the prevailing party in an action, unless prohibited by statute or by these rules or unless the court directs otherwise, for reasons stated in writing and filed in the action." "The power to tax costs is purely statutory, and the prevailing party cannot recover such expenses absent statutory authority." Guerrero , 280 Mich. App. at 670, 761 N.W.2d 723. Plaintiffs first object to the amount authorized for witness fees. Under MCL 600.2552(1), "[a] witness who attends any action or proceeding pending in a court of record shall be paid a witness fee of $12.00 for each day and $6.00 for each half day." Defendant had originally requested $12.00 each for four depositions, but, after plaintiffs pointed out that each of the four depositions only lasted half of a day, defendant agreed that the correct amount was $6.00 for each deposition. The trial court, however, did not adjust the amount to the half-day fee when it granted defendant's motion for costs. Thus, remand is necessary to correct the award. Next, plaintiffs object to the costs allowed for the taking of depositions. Defendant requested $2,316.37 for the taking of depositions. Plaintiffs disputed this amount, arguing that there should be no taxable costs for the taking of depositions because the depositions were not read into evidence and were not filed with the clerk. The trial court disagreed and granted the request in full. To tax costs for the taking of a deposition, the deposition must be (1) filed with any clerk's office, and (2) read into evidence at trial or when damages were assessed. MCL 600.2549. Although defendant asserts that the deposition transcripts were filed in the clerk's office, a review of the register of actions does not support this assertion. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the depositions were read into evidence in the trial court. Thus, defendant was not entitled to any taxable costs for the taking of depositions. Finally, plaintiffs argue that costs for service fees, mileage, and travel were improperly taxed under MCL 600.2559. Under this section, defendant requested $420.37 for mail fees and the trial court granted the request in full. The record indicates that defendant requested the amount to pay for certified mail and federal express fees to send documents to file with the clerk of the court. Because these documents were sent to the court, they do not qualify as "process or papers served out of a court ." MCL 600.2559(1) (emphasis added). Thus, defendant has not shown that it is entitled to the costs related to these mailings. The trial court also granted defendant's request for $392.03 for mileage and travel under this section for defense counsel's travel to certain depositions, hearings, and court proceedings. Nonetheless, this type of mileage and travel is not covered by MCL 600.2559. Defendant argues that the heading of MCL 600.2559 indicates that mileage may be taxed under this section. The catch-line heading for this section on the Michigan Legislature's website reads: "Fees for service of process; fee for process with incorrect address; mileage; fee for advertising; liability; charging fee in excess of law; tax costs; 'order for the seizure of property' defined." (Emphasis omitted.) This catch-line heading was added by the Legislative Service Bureau to its published version of the statute, and it was not part of the statute actually enacted by the Legislature. Compare 2018 PA 261 with MCL 600.2559 (Legislative Service Bureau, Michigan Compiled Laws, Section 600.2559 < < https://perma.cc/4BC3-VDG9>> (accessed December 27, 2018)). Therefore, there is no reason to give it any weight in construing what the Legislature meant when it enacted the statute. Moreover, the Legislature has made it clear that even catch-line headings included in the statute as-enacted must be ignored for purposes of construing that statute. See MCL 8.4b. To the extent that mileage is authorized in some of the subsections of MCL 600.2559, Subsection 1 makes clear that any mileage taxed under MCL 600.2559 must be related to out-of-court service of process or papers, and defendant has not shown that these fees were related to this type of service. Thus, because defendant has not shown that the mileage and travel fees were authorized by statute, defendant has not shown that the taxation of $392.03 was authorized by statute. III. CONCLUSION In Docket No. 340150, we affirm the trial court's order granting summary disposition. In Docket No. 342990, we vacate the trial court's order taxing costs to the extent it allowed the taxation of improper expenses. On remand, the trial court shall modify the order taxing costs by decreasing the amount of taxable costs from $3,331.20 to $178.43. Because no party prevailed in full on appeal, neither party may tax costs under MCR 7.219. We do not retain jurisdiction. Riordan, P.J., and Ronayne Krause, J., concurred with Swartzle, J.

Per Curiam. This case is before us on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court for consideration of whether MCL 600.2963(8) is unconstitutional as it was applied to bar plaintiff's original complaint for superintending control. We conclude that it is. MCL 600.2963(8) cannot constitutionally be applied to bar a complaint for superintending control over an underlying criminal case if the bar is based on outstanding fees owed by an indigent prisoner-plaintiff from an earlier case and the prisoner-plaintiff lacks funds to pay those outstanding fees. This case is before this Court because plaintiff, Douglas C. Jackson, filed a complaint for superintending control in this Court against defendant circuit judge, alleging that defendant failed to rule on a motion for reconsideration of an order in plaintiff's underlying criminal case. In an administrative order entered under MCR 7.211(E), this Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint under MCL 600.2963(8) because plaintiff owed outstanding fees to this Court from a prior case he brought in this Court that was subject to MCL 600.2963. Under MCL 600.2963(1), the provisions of MCL 600.2963 apply to civil actions and appeals in civil actions filed by indigent prisoners of the Michigan Department of Corrections. As relevant here, MCL 600.2963 provides that a prisoner, subject to the provisions of MCL 600.2963, who pursues a civil case or appeal in a civil case, is responsible for possible payment of an initial partial filing fee and for eventual payment of the remainder of the filing fee and that the fees be deducted from his or her prisoner account. See MCL 600.2963(3) and (5). MCL 600.2963(8) then provides, "A prisoner who has failed to pay outstanding fees and costs as required under this section shall not commence a new civil action or appeal until the outstanding fees and costs have been paid." We initially denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the administrative dismissal order, noting, in part, that plaintiff had not presented substantial legal argument to support a conclusion that application of MCL 600.2963(8) to bar the present original action was unconstitutional. In lieu of granting plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated this Court's orders dismissing the case and denying reconsideration of that dismissal and remanded the case to this Court "as on reconsideration granted, for plenary consideration of the plaintiff's argument that MCL 600.2963(8), as applied to his complaint for superintending control, is unconstitutional." In re Jackson , 503 Mich. 851, 915 N.W.2d 476 (2018). Therefore, at this point, the merits of plaintiff's complaint for superintending control are not before this panel. Rather, the question is whether it is constitutional to bar plaintiff from even pursuing the complaint for superintending control in this Court under MCL 600.2963(8). Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental brief arguing that he should not be barred by MCL 600.2963(8) from proceeding. At our invitation, the Attorney General and the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan (the ACLU) have also filed amicus curiae briefs as to the present issue. Plaintiff and the Attorney General present substantially similar arguments that would effectively avoid the constitutional issue before us by construing MCL 600.2963 to be inapplicable to a complaint for superintending control that relates to an underlying criminal case. They argue that such a complaint should not be considered a civil action but that it is, instead, effectively part of the underlying criminal case. We must reject this position. When interpreting a statute, unambiguous statutory language must be applied as written. Ronnisch Constr. Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC , 499 Mich. 544, 552, 886 N.W.2d 113 (2016). Court rules are interpreted "using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes." Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp. , 490 Mich. 61, 70, 803 N.W.2d 271 (2011). By its plain language, MCL 600.2963(1) applies the provisions of MCL 600.2963 to a "civil action" filed by a prisoner of the Michigan Department of Corrections; and by its plain language, MCL 600.2963(8) bars a prisoner who has failed to pay outstanding fees in a prior case subject to MCL 600.2963 from commencing "a new civil action or appeal" until the outstanding fees have been paid. Under MCR 3.301(A)(1)(a), a "civil action or appropriate motion in a pending action" may be brought to obtain superintending control. Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint for superintending control. Under the plain language of MCR 3.301(A)(1)(a), that filing constituted the filing of a civil action. So under the unambiguous language of MCL 600.2963 and MCR 3.301(A)(1)(a), the provisions of MCL 600.2963 apply to this case as a matter of Michigan procedural and statutory law. Also, MCR 3.301(A)(1)(a), with its definition of an original action for superintending control as a civil action, was adopted before the enactment of MCL 600.2963. Thus, the Legislature is presumed to have known that the provisions of MCL 600.2963 would apply to a civil action for superintending control, even if the complaint was for superintending control of an underlying criminal case. See People v. Clark , 315 Mich. App. 219, 232, 888 N.W.2d 309 (2016) (explaining that the Legislature is presumed aware of, and to legislate in harmony with, existing laws when enacting new laws). We now turn to the issue our Supreme Court's remand order directs this Court to decide: whether application of MCL 600.2963(8) to bar plaintiff's complaint for superintending control is unconstitutional. In a line of cases beginning with Griffin v. Illinois , 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), the United States Supreme Court has considered issues involving the constitutionality of legal rules that bar an indigent person from seeking review in a higher court because of an inability to pay filing fees or fees for the preparation of transcripts, particularly in the context of criminal appeals. That Court has explained that these cases "reflect both equal protection and due process concerns" under the Fourteenth Amendment. M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 519 U.S. 102, 120; 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996). "The equal protection concern relates to the legitimacy of fencing out would-be appellants based solely on their inability to pay core costs." Id . Although M.L.B. involved an indigent person who was unable to pay record-preparation fees-which were required under Mississippi law before she could appeal the order terminating her parental rights-we find M.L.B. instructive in its discussion of the present state of federal constitutional law in this area. M.L.B. explains that the Court's earlier opinion in Mayer v. Chicago , 404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971), emphasized that Griffin 's rule was a "flat prohibition" in criminal cases against making access to "appellate processes" turn on the ability to pay. M.L.B. , 519 U.S. at 112, 117 S.Ct. 555. In discussing the right to have access to the courts in certain matters under the line of cases beginning with Griffin , the M.L.B. Court observed, "A 'precise rationale' has not been composed because cases of this order 'cannot be resolved by resort to easy slogans or pigeonhole analysis.' " Id . at 120, 117 S.Ct. 555 (citations omitted). We recognize that the matter before us cannot be resolved by "pigeonhole analysis" merely because plaintiff's action for superintending control is classified by Michigan procedural law as a civil action, i.e., technically a new civil suit by plaintiff against defendant. Nevertheless, we conclude that this case is an "appellate process" for the underlying criminal case for purposes of the federal constitutional right to access the appellate process in a criminal case. Formalistic procedural labels aside, what plaintiff seeks in this superintending-control action is review by this Court, as the court immediately above the circuit court, of defendant circuit judge's alleged failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration in plaintiff's criminal case. Plaintiff asks this Court to direct defendant circuit judge to rule on that motion. This appears to be plaintiff's only option. Under Michigan procedural law, plaintiff has no means to appeal defendant circuit judge's failure to rule on a motion within a reasonable time because both an appeal of right and an application for leave to appeal first require a judgment or order of a lower court. See MCR 7.203(A) and (B). When a circuit court fails to rule on a motion, no such judgment or order is entered. But if a circuit court issued an order denying a motion in a criminal case, the criminal defendant would be able to file either a claim of appeal or an application for leave to appeal that order. See MCR 7.204 ; MCR 7.205. MCL 600.2963(8) would not apply to the filing of such an appeal in a criminal case. Indeed, as M.L.B. makes apparent, it would be unconstitutional, on the basis of an inability to pay fees, to preclude an indigent criminal defendant from filing a claim of appeal. Yet if a circuit court denied a motion in a criminal case sub silentio by perpetually failing to rule on the motion, MCL 600.2963(8) would, by its terms, bar an indigent criminal defendant from filing a complaint for superintending control if he or she owed outstanding fees to this Court for a prior civil case, even if the indigent criminal defendant had no means to pay those outstanding fees. This is an unwarranted distinction for purposes of the federal constitutional right of access to appellate review under Griffin and its progeny because, in either event, what is being sought is review by this Court, as the next-higher-level court, of an aspect of the criminal case. Thus, we recognize that this case is criminal in nature for purposes of the federal constitutional right of access to the courts in such cases. And given that function, a complaint for superintending control over an underlying criminal case must reasonably be recognized as an "appellate process" within the meaning of M.L.B. and Mayer , even though it is an original civil action, and not formally an appeal, under Michigan procedural law. We therefore hold that MCL 600.2963(8) is unconstitutional as applied when it is used to bar a complaint for superintending control seeking relief in an underlying criminal case where the indigent plaintiff is unable to pay the outstanding fees owed to this Court for a prior case subject to MCL 600.2963. Review of plaintiff's most recent prisoner account statement shows plaintiff's account to have a zero current spendable balance and, for the previous 12 months, a zero average monthly deposit and a negative average monthly balance. Thus, it appears manifest that plaintiff is indigent and cannot pay the outstanding fees owed this Court for his prior case subject to MCL 600.2963(8). On the basis of the principles just articulated, plaintiff must be allowed to proceed with the present superintending-control action despite the outstanding fees from the prior case. In its amicus curiae brief, the ACLU argues that application of MCL 600.2963(8) would be unconstitutional whenever it would bar an indigent prisoner from proceeding with a civil appeal or original action because of outstanding fees owed for an earlier civil case subject to MCL 600.2963. We decline to unnecessarily reach those arguments. We do note that in M.L.B. the United States Supreme Court referred to its earlier opinion in United States v. Kras , 409 U.S. 434, 93 S.Ct. 631, 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973), as clarifying that "a constitutional requirement to waive court fees in civil cases is the exception, not the general rule." M.L.B. , 519 U.S. at 114, 117 S.Ct. 555. We therefore emphasize that our holding is rooted in the heightened protection given to criminal defendants for access to the courts in criminal cases for purposes of securing the federal constitutional right to the appellate process. We leave as questions for another day consideration of issues related to the treatment of indigent prisoners by MCL 600.2963(8) in a civil case that does not seek relief related to an underlying criminal case and that is not otherwise provided heightened protection for purposes of access to the courts (like termination of parental rights matters as considered in M.L.B. ) and whether application of MCL 600.2963(8) only to prisoners and not to indigent nonprisoners raises equal-protection concerns. In light of our holding that it was unconstitutional to bar this superintending-control action from consideration on the merits, we simultaneously with the issuance of this opinion enter an order allowing this case to proceed under MCL 600.2963. Consistent with the remaining provisions of MCL 600.2963 and this Court's customary practices for civil actions filed by prisoners of the Michigan Department of Corrections, that order formally denies plaintiff's motion to waive fees and directs the clerk's office to return his complaint for superintending control but allows him to proceed with this case by refiling the returned pleadings within 21 days after the date of that order (and this opinion). If plaintiff does so, he will be responsible for eventual payment of the appropriate overall filing fee for the present case through deductions from future deposits to his prisoner account, and the case will be decided on the merits. If plaintiff does not refile the returned pleadings, this case will be closed out by the clerk's office as if it had never been filed, consistently with MCL 600.2963(1). We note that there is no inconsistency between our holding that MCL 600.2963(8) cannot constitutionally be applied under the circumstances here and application of the other fee-related requirements of MCL 600.2963. If plaintiff refiles his pleadings, this case will proceed to consideration on the merits regardless of whether the filing fee for the present case is ever completely collected from possible future deposits to plaintiff's prisoner account. It follows that imposing the requirement for potential future collection of the filing fee does not prevent plaintiff from having access to this Court on the basis of his present indigence. Also, our conclusion that this case must be recognized as criminal in nature for purposes of the federal constitutional right of access to the courts in such cases does not change its classification as an original civil action subject to the fee-related requirements of MCL 600.2963 (apart from an unconstitutional application of MCL 600.2963(8) ) by Michigan procedural and statutory law. This case shall proceed in this Court consistent with this opinion. O'Brien, P.J., and Boonstra and Cameron, JJ., concurred. We thank the Attorney General and the ACLU for accepting our invitation to file amicus curiae briefs to seek to aid the Court in deciding the present question. The Attorney General refers to MCR 6.001(D) in support of its position, but we conclude that provision is inapposite. Under MCR 6.001(D), the rules of civil procedure generally apply to criminal cases. But the general applicability of civil-procedure rules to criminal cases is immaterial to the status of the present case as a civil case under Michigan procedural law. The M.L.B. Court contrasted the "flat prohibition" of "bolted doors"-i.e., denial of access to a court because of an inability to pay fees-to the less-encompassing right to counsel at state expense. M.L.B. , 519 U.S. at 112-113, 117 S.Ct. 555. Because of the zero current balance, zero average monthly deposit for the prior 12 months, and negative average monthly balance for the prior 12 months shown in plaintiff's account statement, plaintiff is not responsible for an initial partial filing fee under MCL 600.2963(3).

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Waterfront Alliance to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on May 9, 2019, is accepted for filing.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of petitioner-appellant to extend the time for filing her supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 14, 2019.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Inland Press Company to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on July 15, 2019, is accepted for filing.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellants Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC, EAN Holdings, LLC, and Enterprise Leasing Company to extend the time for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before July 30, 2019.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $15.00; submit a copy of this order; and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the administrative dismissal of this application. If appellant timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant's account until the payments equal the balance due of $360.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return a copy of appellant's pleadings with this order.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to set aside the verdict is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's April 2, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 5, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

Bernstein, J. In these consolidated cases, the individual plaintiffs were elderly women receiving long-term care in nursing homes. In each case, the plaintiff, an "institutionalized spouse," began receiving long-term care at a nursing home at her own expense. One to two months later, each plaintiff's husband, a "community spouse," created an irrevocable trust that was solely for his own benefit. Such a trust is commonly called a "solely for the benefit of," or "SBO," trust. The couples then transferred a majority of their individual and marital property to each SBO trust or its trustee, giving up any claim of title to that property. Distributions or payments from each SBO trust were to be made on an actuarially sound basis and solely to or for the benefit of the community spouse. The actuarially sound distribution schedule required that each trustee distribute the income and resources held by the trust to each community spouse at a rate that would deplete the trust within the community spouse's expected lifetime. A short time after each SBO trust was formed, each institutionalized spouse applied for Medicaid benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services and its director (collectively, the Department) determined that the entire value of the principal of each SBO trust was a countable asset for the purpose of determining each institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. Thus, the Department concluded that each institutionalized spouse did not show the requisite financial need because the value of the trust assets put their countable resources above the monetary threshold, and it denied each application. In each case, the plaintiff unsuccessfully contested the Department's decision in an administrative appeal, but each decision was then reversed on appeal in the circuit court. On appeal in the Court of Appeals, all three cases were consolidated, and the Department's denial decisions were reinstated in a published opinion. With the cases having been appealed in this Court, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the controlling federal statutes, which caused the Court of Appeals to improperly reinstate the Department's denial decisions. As explained in this opinion, the fact that an irrevocable trust, which includes former assets of an institutionalized spouse, can make payments to a community spouse does not automatically render the assets held by the trust countable for the purpose of an institutionalized spouse's initial eligibility determination. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) ; 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Because the administrative hearing decision in each case suffered from the same faulty reasoning used by the Court of Appeals, this legal error may have caused the administrative law judges (ALJs) to forgo a more thorough review of the Medicaid applications at issue or to disregard other avenues of legal analysis. Therefore, rather than order that the Medicaid applications be approved at this time, we vacate the hearing decision of the ALJ in each case and remand these cases to the appropriate administrative tribunal for any additional proceedings necessary to determine the validity of the Department's decision to deny plaintiffs' Medicaid applications. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal involves three cases that have been consolidated for the purpose of appellate review. In Docket No. 156132, Mary Ann Hegadorn (Mrs. Hegadorn) began receiving long-term care at the MediLodge Nursing Home in Howell, Michigan, on December 20, 2013. Approximately one month later, her husband, Ralph D. Hegadorn (Mr. Hegadorn), established the "Ralph D. Hegadorn Irrevocable Trust No. 1 (Sole Benefit Trust)." (Hegadorn Trust). Mr. Hegadorn is the beneficiary of the Hegadorn Trust, and neither he nor his wife is the trustee or successor trustee. Section 2.2 of the Hegadorn Trust states that the "Trustee shall distribute the Resources of the Trust at a rate that is calculated to use up all of the Resources during" Mr. Hegadorn's expected lifetime, and it includes a suggested distribution schedule that is based on the Department's policies. The Hegadorn Trust also lists another trust as a possible residual beneficiary, stating: At my death, if my Spouse is surviving, Trustee shall distribute the remaining trust property to the trustee of the Special Supplemental Care Trust for Mary Ann Hegadorn, created by my Will dated the same day as this Agreement, as my Will may be amended from time to time. [Hegadorn Trust, § 3.3 (formatting altered).] On April 24, 2014, Mrs. Hegadorn applied for Medicaid benefits. The Department subsequently denied Mrs. Hegadorn's application, determining that her countable assets, including the assets that were placed in the Hegadorn Trust, exceeded the applicable financial eligibility limit. In Docket No. 156133, Dorothy Lollar (Mrs. Lollar) began receiving long-term care at the MediLodge Nursing Home in Howell, Michigan, on May 1, 2014. Approximately a month and a half later, Mrs. Lollar's husband, Dallas H. Lollar (Mr. Lollar), established the "Dallas H. Lollar Irrevocable Trust" (Lollar Trust), which provided that it was intended to "be a 'Solely for the Benefit of' trust." Mr. Lollar is the beneficiary of the Lollar Trust, and neither he nor his wife is the trustee or successor trustee. Section 2.2 of the Lollar Trust states that the Trustee "shall ... pay or distribute" to Mr. Lollar, "or for [his] sole benefit, during [his] lifetime such part or all of the net income and principal" of the Trust "as Trustee determines is necessary to distribute the resources in [sic] an actuarially sound basis ...." The Lollar Trust also lists another trust as a possible residual beneficiary, stating that in the event of Mr. Lollar's death, he "give[s] all the rest, residue and remainder of this Sole Benefit Trust to the Dallas H. Lollar Revocable Trust Agreement U/A/D June 19, 2014, and administered according to the terms of that Agreement." Lollar Trust, § 3.2b (formatting altered). On July 21, 2014, Mrs. Lollar applied for Medicaid benefits. The Department subsequently denied Mrs. Lollar's application, determining that her countable assets, including the assets that were placed in the Lollar Trust, exceeded the applicable financial eligibility limit. In Docket No. 156134, Roselyn Ford (Mrs. Ford) began receiving long-term care at the Saline Evangelical Nursing Home in Saline, Michigan, on December 5, 2013. About a month later, Mrs. Ford's husband, Herbert W. Ford (Mr. Ford), established the "Herbert Ford Irrevocable Trust" (Ford Trust), which provided that it was intended to be "a 'solely for the benefit of' trust." Mr. Ford is the beneficiary of the Ford Trust, and neither he nor his wife is the trustee or successor trustee. The Ford Trust also provides that the "Trustee shall ... pay or distribute to [Mr. Ford], or for [his] sole benefit, during his lifetime whatever part of the net income and principal (the Resources) of the Trust that Trustee determines is necessary to distribute the resources on an actuarially sound basis." Section 3.2 of the Ford Trust lists as possible residual beneficiaries separate trusts to be established by Mr. Ford's will for the benefit of his living children and the descendants of his deceased children. On January 30, 2014, Mrs. Ford applied for Medicaid benefits. The Department subsequently denied Mrs. Ford's application, determining that her countable assets, including the assets that were placed in the Ford Trust, exceeded the applicable financial eligibility limit. Each plaintiff timely requested an administrative hearing to contest the Department's decision. With respect to Mrs. Hegadorn's and Mrs. Lollar's cases, a consolidated hearing was held before ALJ Landis Y. Lain, who affirmed the Department's decision. With respect to Mrs. Ford's case, a hearing was held before ALJ Alice C. Elkin, who similarly affirmed the Department's decision. Each ALJ agreed with the Department that Bridges Eligibility Manual (BEM) 401 required the Department to count the assets held by each trust because the trust could make payments to the community spouse. The ALJs further concluded that this was consistent with the controlling federal statutes. The ALJs made no factual findings and rendered no conclusions of law regarding possible payments to the trusts that are listed as residual beneficiaries in the SBO trusts. The plaintiff in each case appealed in the appropriate circuit court and, in each case, the circuit court reversed the ALJ's decision. The Department appealed each circuit court decision in the Court of Appeals, which consolidated the cases. In a published opinion, the panel reversed the circuit courts and reinstated the ALJs' decisions to deny benefits. Plaintiffs timely sought leave to appeal in this Court. We granted plaintiffs' application in an order entered March 7, 2018, stating: The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed whether: (1) the Court of Appeals clearly erred in holding that the trust assets of the plaintiffs' spouses and decedent Lollar's spouse are "countable assets" for purposes of Medicaid eligibility; and (2) the Department of Health and Human Services could base its decision on the retroactive application of a department policy adopted more than 45 days after the plaintiffs' applications were filed. [ Hegadorn v. Dep't of Human Servs. Dir. , 501 Mich. 984, 907 N.W.2d 578 (2018).] II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Resolution of this appeal turns on whether the federal Medicaid statutes, which govern certain aspects of the Department's Medicaid policies, allow the Department to count the assets held in a community spouse's SBO trust in determining an institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid. Final agency decisions are subject to judicial review pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, see Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28, and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq . The Michigan Constitution provides: All final decisions ... of any administrative officer or agency ... which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such final decisions ... are authorized by law .... [ Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28.] The APA provides that, unless a different scope of review is established by law, the court shall hold unlawful and set aside a decision or order of an agency if substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision or order is any of the following: (a) In violation of the constitution or a statute. * * * (f) Affected by other substantial and material error of law. [ MCL 24.306(1).] The APA further instructs that "[t]he court, as appropriate, may affirm, reverse or modify the decision or order or remand the case for further proceedings." MCL 24.306(2). An administrative agency's interpretation of a statute that it is obligated to execute is entitled to "respectful consideration," but it "cannot conflict with the plain meaning of the statute." In re Rovas Complaint Against SBC Mich. , 482 Mich. 90, 108, 754 N.W.2d 259 (2008). We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Walters v. Nadell , 481 Mich. 377, 381, 751 N.W.2d 431 (2008). "The principal goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, and the most reliable evidence of that intent is the plain language of the statute." South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Environmental Quality , 502 Mich. 349, 360-361, 917 N.W.2d 603 (2018). When interpreting federal statutes, we strive to "give effect to the will of Congress[.]" Walters , 481 Mich. at 381, 751 N.W.2d 431 (quotation marks and citations omitted.) This case also requires us to construe language in trust documents. The proper construction of a trust, like the construction of a will, is a question of law subject to de novo review. See In re Raymond Estate , 483 Mich. 48, 53, 764 N.W.2d 1 (2009). Our goal in interpreting trust language is to determine and give effect to the trustor's intent. Id . at 52, 764 N.W.2d 1. We begin by examining the language of the trust itself, and, if there is no ambiguity, we interpret it according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id . ; In re Maloney Trust , 423 Mich. 632, 639, 377 N.W.2d 791 (1985). III. ANALYSIS A. OVERVIEW OF MEDICAID The Medicaid program is governed by a complex web of interlocking statutes, as well as regulations and interpretive documents published by state and federal agencies. The program was created by Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965, PL 89-97 ; 79 Stat. 343, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq . Medicaid is generally a need-based assistance program for medical care that is funded and administered jointly by the federal government and individual states. Ketchum Estate v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 314 Mich. App. 485, 488, 887 N.W.2d 226 (2016). At the federal level, the program is administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The State Medicaid Manual is published by CMS to help guide states in their administration of the program, including how to determine an applicant's eligibility for benefits. See Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn , 547 U.S. 268, 275, 126 S.Ct. 1752, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006). " 'Each participating State develops a plan containing reasonable standards ... for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance' within boundaries set by the Medicaid statute and Secretary of Health and Human Services." Wis. Dep't of Health & Family Servs. v. Blumer , 534 U.S. 473, 479, 122 S.Ct. 962, 151 L.Ed.2d 935 (2002), quoting Schweiker v. Gray Panthers , 453 U.S. 34, 36-37, 101 S.Ct. 2633, 69 L.Ed.2d 460 (1981). "In formulating those standards, States must 'provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant.' " Blumer , 534 U.S. at 479, 122 S.Ct. 962, quoting 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(17)(B). Medicaid benefits are provided automatically for the "categorically needy," meaning persons who receive welfare payments through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq ., or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 42 U.S.C. 1382 et seq . See 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A) ; Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (SSA POMS ), SI 01715.020 (August 2, 2016), available at < https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0501715020> (accessed May 2, 2019) [https://perma.cc/E6Q9-WSMB]. Congress has also enacted an optional program, in which states may elect to participate, for those who are deemed "medically needy." Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Schroder , 353 Ark. 885, 890, 122 S.W.3d 10 (2003) ; 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii). Although medically needy individuals meet the nonfinancial requirements under either the AFDC or the SSI programs, they become eligible for Medicaid benefits only when their incomes and assets are reduced below certain established levels. See 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C) ; 42 CFR 435.301(b)(2) and (3) (2018) ; 42 CFR 435.320 (2018). Michigan has elected to include this optional coverage for the medically needy in its state Medicaid plan. Therefore, Michigan must comply with the requirements imposed by the federal Medicaid statutes. See In re Rasmer Estate , 501 Mich. 18, 25, 903 N.W.2d 800 (2017) ; 42 U.S.C. 1396a. Plaintiffs here fall within the medically needy category for those over the age of 65. Therefore, to be eligible for Medicaid benefits, they were required to reduce their countable incomes and assets to or below $ 2,000. See Mackey v. Dep't of Human Servs. , 289 Mich. App. 688, 698, 808 N.W.2d 484 (2010) ; BEM 400 (July 1, 2014), p. 7; BEM 402 (April 1, 2014), p. 4. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, "[b]ecause spouses typically possess assets and income jointly and bear financial responsibility for each other, Medicaid eligibility determinations for married applicants have resisted simple solutions." Blumer , 534 U.S. at 479, 122 S.Ct. 962. Prior to 1988, to become eligible for Medicaid benefits, a married individual who was admitted to a nursing home was required to "spend down" all the assets jointly held with his or her spouse who remained in the marital home. See HR Rep. No. 100-105(II), at 59, 65-67 (2d Sess. 1988), as reprinted in 1988 USCCAN 857, 881, 888-890. That changed with the enactment of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5. As the Supreme Court has recently explained, the MCCA was enacted "to protect community spouses from 'pauperization' while preventing financially secure couples from obtaining Medicaid assistance," which is why "Congress installed a set of intricate and interlocking requirements with which States must comply in allocating a couple's income and resources." Blumer , 534 U.S. at 480, 122 S.Ct. 962. Since the enactment of the MCCA, Congress has made numerous additional amendments of the Medicaid statutes to adapt the program to changing economic realities while striving to prevent abuse of the program. Many of these adjustments concern the use and evaluation of estate planning tools like trusts and annuities. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, PL 99-272 ; 100 Stat. 82, formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396a(k), instructed states to treat as countable assets the maximum amount of a trust's principal a trustee could pay to a Medicaid applicant if the trustee were to exercise his or her discretionary authority, whether or not that discretion was actually exercised. See 1 Kove & Kosakow, Irrevocable Trusts (4th ed., October 2018 update), § 27:9. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93), PL 103-66 ; 107 Stat. 312, repealed 42 U.S.C. 1396a(k) and replaced it with the current Medicaid trust rules. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d) ; 1 Irrevocable Trusts, § 27:9. States that choose to participate in the Medicaid program are required to "comply with the provisions of section 1396p of [Title XIX] with respect to liens, adjustments and recoveries of medical assistance correctly paid, transfers of assets,, [sic] and treatment of certain trusts [.]" 42 U.S.C. 1396a(18) (emphasis added). As our review of these Medicaid statutes demonstrates, Congress has been particularly active in its efforts to prevent spousal pauperization while at the same time limiting the ability of wealthier individuals to shelter income and assets using estate planning tools. B. TREATMENT OF TRUST RESOURCES FOR AN INSTITUTIONALIZED SPOUSE'S INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION The main issue in this appeal is whether assets making up the principal of an irrevocable SBO trust are countable assets for the purpose of determining an institutionalized spouse's initial eligibility for Medicaid. In Michigan, the Department administers the state Medicaid program. The Department's policies are contained in several publications, including the BEM , the SSA POMS , and the State Medicaid Manual . A person who falls in the optional medically needy category, like each plaintiff here, cannot qualify for Medicaid benefits if his or her countable assets and income exceed $ 2,000 during the period in which he or she applies for benefits. See Mackey , 289 Mich. App. at 698, 808 N.W.2d 484 ; BEM 400 at 7; BEM 402 at 4. According to BEM 401 , "[h]ow much of the principal of a trust is a countable asset depends on" "[t]he terms of the trust" and "[w]hether any of the principal consists of countable assets or countable income." BEM 401 (July 1, 2014), p. 10. With respect to irrevocable trusts, such as those at issue here, BEM 401 instructs the Department to "[c]ount as the person's countable asset the value of the countable assets in the trust principal if there is any condition under which the principal could be paid to or on behalf of the person from an irrevocable trust." Id . at 11. The legal authority for BEM 401 derives from two parts of the federal Medicaid statutes: 42 U.S.C. 1396a and 42 U.S.C. 1396p. See BEM 401 at 17-18. However, additional rules applicable only to institutionalized spouses are described in 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5. These additional rules serve as a starting point for evaluating an institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. 1. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 When determining an institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid benefits, a computation of the couple's total joint resources is taken "as of the beginning of the first continuous period of institutionalization, " which may or may not be the same month in which one applies for benefits. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(1)(A). The stated purpose of this first computation is to determine the amount of the "spousal share" allocated to the community spouse. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(1)(A)(ii). The couple's resources are divided into those that are countable and those that are exempt. One-half of the total value of their countable resources "to the extent either the institutionalized spouse or the community spouse has an ownership interest" is considered a spousal share. Id . "The spousal share allocated to the community spouse qualifies as the [community spouse resource allowance or] CSRA, subject to a ceiling ... indexed for inflation" by Congress. Blumer , 534 U.S. at 482, 122 S.Ct. 962. The CSRA is the monetary value of assets that may be retained by or transferred to the community spouse without those resources being counted against the institutionalized spouse for his or her initial eligibility determination. See 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2)(B) and (f) ; Blumer , 534 U.S. at 482-483, 122 S.Ct. 962. Available resources in excess of the CSRA will generally disqualify an institutionalized spouse from receiving Medicaid benefits unless they are spent down prior to filing an application. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2) ; Blumer , 534 U.S. at 482-483, 122 S.Ct. 962. Once the amount of the CSRA is determined, a second calculation is required to determine the resources available to the institutionalized spouse for the purpose of determining the institutionalized spouse's initial Medicaid eligibility. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2). This calculation is based on the resources available to the institutionalized spouse on the day that the institutionalized spouse submits his or her application for Medicaid benefits. "In determining the resources of an institutionalized spouse at the time of application for benefits ..., all the resources held by either the institutionalized spouse, community spouse, or both, shall be considered to be available to the institutionalized spouse" to the extent that they exceed the CSRA. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2)(A) and (B) (emphasis added). "[A]fter the month in which an institutionalized spouse is determined to be eligible for benefits ..., no resources of the community spouse shall be deemed available to the institutionalized spouse." 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(4). While the MCCA contains provisions governing the treatment of income paid from a trust, see 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(b)(2)(B), its general resource allocation provisions are silent with regard to the treatment of assets or resources held by a trust. The MCCA also does not provide a definition for the term "resources," but the term does not include those things excluded by 42 U.S.C. 1382b(a) or (d). See 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(5). We are asked to consider whether the principal of an irrevocable trust, created using assets of both spouses but which may distribute payments only to or for the benefit of the community spouse, is a countable asset for the purpose of the institutionalized spouse's initial eligibility determination. Stated differently, is the principal of the irrevocable trust a "resource[ ] held by either the institutionalized spouse, community spouse, or both," such that it is considered "available to the institutionalized spouse"? 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2)(A). Assuming without deciding that the principal of an irrevocable trust constitutes a resource as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5, such a resource is not "held by" the institutionalized or community spouse. The property that makes up the principal of a trust is not owned by or otherwise directly available to the beneficiary. Instead, the trustee holds title to the property that constitutes the principal of a trust and holds it in trust for the beneficiary. See MCL 700.7401 ; Equitable Trust Co. v. Milton Realty Co. , 261 Mich. 571, 577, 246 N.W. 500 (1933) (holding that "[t]o create a trust, there must be an assignment of designated property to a trustee with the intention of passing title thereto, to hold for the benefit of others"). The trust beneficiary, on the other hand, holds a right to "enforce the performance of the trust in equity." MCL 555.16. See also Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Nichols , 311 Mich. 107, 18 N.W.2d 383 (1945). Unless the beneficiary is also a trustee, the beneficiary does not own the property forming the principal of the irrevocable trust. If either spouse retained possession and use of trust property, then the question might be closer, but that question is not raised here. In summary, the principal of an irrevocable trust generally will not be a resource available to either spouse according to 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c), because such property is not held by either spouse. The principal of an irrevocable trust may, however, be made legally available to an institutionalized spouse by way of the Medicaid trust rules contained in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d). 2. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d) : THE MEDICAID TRUST RULES The first two paragraphs of the Medicaid trust rules describe to whom the rules apply and how to determine whether that person created a trust. Paragraph (1) of the Medicaid trust rules begins by stating, "For purposes of determining an individual's eligibility for, or amount of, benefits under a State plan under this subchapter, subject to paragraph (4), the rules specified in paragraph (3) shall apply to a trust established by such individual." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1). While, generally speaking, an "individual" is "a particular being or thing," i.e., "a single human being," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed), the context of a term's usage in a statute affects its meaning, see South Dearborn , 502 Mich. at 361, 917 N.W.2d 603. Here, the context in which "an individual" is used limits the scope of possible human beings to which 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1) refers. Paragraph (1) provides that Subsection (d) applies to determining "an individual's eligibility for, or amount of, benefits ...." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1). Medicaid benefits are granted only to those who apply for them and who also meet the eligibility requirements. Thus, if an eligibility determination is being made, then the "individual" referred to in Paragraph (1) must be an applicant for Medicaid; similarly, language directing the reader's attention to the amount of benefits provided indicates that the "individual" is either an applicant for or a current recipient of Medicaid benefits. It follows that "an individual" in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1) is a person applying for Medicaid benefits or a person who has been approved for a yet-to-be-determined amount of benefits. Applied to the context of this appeal, the individual referred to here is the institutionalized spouse, who is the Medicaid applicant. The plain language of 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1) thus provides that, to determine an institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid benefits, the rules outlined in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3) govern trusts established by the institutionalized spouse. Paragraph (2) of the same subsection provides the criteria for determining whether "an individual" has established a trust. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2). For the purposes of Subsection (d), "an individual" has established a trust if assets[ ] of the individual were used to form all or part of the corpus of the trust and if any of the following individuals established such trust other than by will: (i) The individual. (ii) The individual's spouse. (iii) A person, including any court or administrative body, with legal authority to act in place of or on behalf of the individual or the individual's spouse. (iv) A person, including any court or administrative body, acting at the direction or upon the request of the individual or the individual's spouse. [ 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2)(A).] Therefore, when a community spouse creates a trust, other than by will, using assets of his or her institutionalized spouse, that action is legally attributed to the institutionalized spouse for the purposes of the institutionalized spouse's Medicaid eligibility determination. Deciding that an institutionalized spouse is an individual who has established a trust does not, however, end the inquiry. Paragraph (2) only describes the conditions for when a Medicaid applicant is deemed to have established a trust. The rules described in Paragraph (3) govern whether the assets held by such a trust are available to the Medicaid applicant and thus countable for his or her initial eligibility determination. 3. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) : THE ANY-CIRCUMSTANCES RULE Once it is determined that a Medicaid applicant has established a trust, the question becomes whether assets held by the trust are available to the applicant. The trust rules in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3) treat revocable trusts and irrevocable trusts differently. Generally, the principal of a revocable trust is always considered an asset available to the Medicaid applicant who formed the trust. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3). This is unsurprising, as a trustor can typically dissolve a revocable trust and reclaim title and possession of those things held by the trust. The rules for irrevocable trusts are more intricate. Notably, the rules do not assume that assets placed in an irrevocable trust are available to the Medicaid applicant. Instead, when assessing an irrevocable trust, the "any-circumstances rule" applies: (i) if there are any circumstances under which payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of the individual , the portion of the corpus from which, or the income on the corpus from which, payment to the individual could be made shall be considered resources available to the individual , and payments from that portion of the corpus or income-(I) to or for the benefit of the individual, shall be considered income of the individual, and (II) for any other purpose, shall be considered a transfer of assets by the individual subject to subsection (c); and (ii) any portion of the trust from which, or any income on the corpus from which, no payment could under any circumstances be made to the individual shall be considered , as of the date of establishment of the trust (or, if later, the date on which payment to the individual was foreclosed) to be assets disposed by the individual for purposes of subsection (c) , and the value of the trust shall be determined for purposes of such subsection by including the amount of any payments made from such portion of the trust after such date. [ 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) (emphasis added).] Focusing on the statutory language, "any" is undefined within the statute itself, but is commonly defined as "one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind" or "one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Thus, the use of the term "any circumstances" demonstrates that we are to consider not only obvious circumstances, but also those that are hypothetical or even unlikely. However, the rule also includes key limitations. The rule instructs us to consider only possible "payments from the trust," indicating that there must be a nexus between the trust and the recipient or beneficiary of the payment. We are next told that only those payments that could be made "to or for the benefit of the individual" fall within the rule. If there are circumstances under which payments from the trust can be made to or for the benefit of the individual, then the portion of the principal of the trust from which such payments would come is deemed available to the individual, and thus countable for determining the individual's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. If no such circumstances exist, then the portion of the principal derived from the applicant's assets is not a countable asset for the applicant's eligibility determination. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(c). Correctly applying the any-circumstances rule requires understanding to whom "the individual" refers in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). The Department urges us to read "the individual" as referring to anyone whose resources must be evaluated in assessing a Medicaid application, without regard to whether that person is the Medicaid applicant or the applicant's spouse. Applied here, the Department reads "the individual" as referring to the person applying for Medicaid benefits (the institutionalized spouse), the community spouse, or both. This was also the meaning adopted by the Court of Appeals. However, we conclude that this interpretation suffers from several critical flaws. As already discussed, the context in which a statutory term is used affects its meaning. See South Dearborn , 502 Mich. at 361, 917 N.W.2d 603. As with Paragraphs (1) and (2) of 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d), the context in which "the individual" is used limits the scope of possible human beings to which 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) refers. The first limitation is the use of the definite article "the" preceding "individual." This suggests that "the individual" referred to in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i) is a single person, as opposed to an open class of all people. See Massey v. Mandell , 462 Mich. 375, 382 n. 5, 614 N.W.2d 70 (2000) (" 'The' and 'a' have different meanings. 'The' is defined as 'definite article. 1. (used, [especially] before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an) ....' Random House Webster's College Dictionary , p. 1382."). Additionally, Paragraph (1) of Subsection (d) begins by stating, "[f]or purposes of determining an individual's eligibility for, or amount of," Medicaid benefits, "the rules specified in paragraph (3) shall apply to a trust established by such individual ." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1) (emphasis added). As discussed in Part III(B)(2) of this opinion, Paragraph (1) uses "an individual" to refer to a person applying for Medicaid benefits or a person who qualifies for benefits, but the amount of those benefits must be determined. Paragraph (1) then states that Paragraph (3) applies to a trust established by that applicant or recipient. Thus, while "an individual" in Paragraph (1) can be read as referring to a potential class of persons, when "such individual" establishes a trust, that class is reduced to a single person for the purposes of Paragraph (3). Paragraph (2) of Subsection (d) also refers to "an individual" when describing whether such individual established a trust, and it contrasts that term with "the individual's spouse." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). Reading these provisions together, it follows that when Paragraph (3) refers to "the individual," it is referring to the same individual whose eligibility for, or amount of, benefits is being determined and who has established a trust under Paragraph (2): the applicant for or recipient of Medicaid benefits. When considering the eligibility of an institutionalized spouse for Medicaid benefits, "the individual" must be read as referring to the institutionalized spouse to the exclusion of the community spouse, who, by definition, is not applying for or receiving Medicaid benefits. We find further support for this reading by reference to markedly different language in the rules governing trusts under the SSI program. See 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e)(2) and (3). The SSI program contains a nearly identical any-circumstances rule with one key difference: it explicitly differentiates between the individual and the individual's spouse. See 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e)(3)(B) ("[I]f there are any circumstances under which payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of the individual (or of the individual's spouse ) ....") (emphasis added). "Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Russello v. United States , 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed. 2d 17 (1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc. , 442 Mich. 201, 210, 501 N.W.2d 76 (1993) ("Courts cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute, and then, on the basis of that assumption, apply what is not there."). When Congress intended a provision of the Medicaid or SSI statutes to apply to both the applicant and the applicant's spouse, it has stated so expressly. Moreover, the Medicaid trust rules in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d) were added by OBRA 93, six years before Congress added the SSI trust rules in 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e) with the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, PL 106-169 ; 113 Stat. 1822. Had Congress intended the two rules to operate identically, as the Department suggests, then Congress likely would have used identical language in both 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e)(3)(B). Reading "the individual" in this manner and in the context of this appeal, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) refers only to an institutionalized spouse and not a community spouse. As BEM 401 is based primarily on 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) and incorporates the any-circumstances rule into Michigan's Medicaid policies, this same restriction applies to BEM 401 , despite the use of the term "person" in place of "individual." The any-circumstances rule, therefore, makes assets held by an irrevocable trust available to an institutionalized spouse if there are any circumstances, whether likely or hypothetical, under which the trust could make a payment to or for the benefit of the institutionalized spouse. If an irrevocable trust can make payments only to the community spouse, then those payments will satisfy the any-circumstances rule only if there is evidence that the payments could be for the benefit of the institutionalized spouse. If application of 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) makes assets held by an irrevocable trust available to an institutionalized spouse, then the value of such assets is countable for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c). There is no inconsistency created by our reading of 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 and 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d), and therefore the preemptive provision of 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(a)(1) does not apply. As discussed before, the general resource-allocation rules of 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c), on their own, do not treat assets held by a trust as a resource available to either spouse. If a resource is not available to either spouse, then it is not a countable asset for the purpose of an institutionalized spouse's initial eligibility determination. See 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2). The specific provisions governing the treatment of trusts in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d) make the vast majority of assets held by a trust created by an institutionalized spouse available to that spouse by operation of law, while leaving open the possibility that some such assets will remain legally unavailable. The general provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 can therefore be read in harmony with the specific provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d), and no inconsistency exists. See People v. Calloway , 500 Mich. 180, 185-186, 895 N.W.2d 165 (2017) ("[W]hen a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls."); People v. Mazur , 497 Mich. 302, 313, 872 N.W.2d 201 (2015) ("Under the [in pari materia ] doctrine, statutes that relate to the same subject or that share a common purpose should, if possible, be read together to create a harmonious body of law."). In summary, the principal of an irrevocable trust formed solely for the benefit of a community spouse is not per se a "resource available" to an institutionalized spouse under 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(2) for the purpose of determining an institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. Assets making up the principal of such a trust are not automatically considered countable assets for Medicaid eligibility determinations. However, the principal of an irrevocable trust may become a resource available to an institutionalized spouse, and thus a countable asset, if the following conditions are met: (1) assets of the institutionalized spouse are used to form the principal of the trust, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2)(A) ; (2) the institutionalized spouse, his or her spouse, or one of the other entities listed under 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2)(A)(i) through (iv) established the trust using a means other than a will; and (3) there are "any circumstances under which payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of" the institutionalized spouse, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i). IV. APPLICATION To determine whether the SBO trusts at issue allow for a payment to be made "to or for the benefit of" the institutionalized spouses, we must look to the language of the trust documents themselves. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B) ; BEM 401 at 10. If the principal of each SBO trust at issue is rightly considered to be a countable asset, the Department properly denied plaintiffs' applications. However, if the Department has deemed, as countable assets, property that the federal statutes do not consider available to plaintiffs, then the Department's decisions are contrary to law. It is undisputed that each plaintiff is an individual whose eligibility for Medicaid benefits is being determined under 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(1). It is also undisputed that, in each case, assets of the institutionalized spouse were used to establish the SBO trusts. Accordingly, the institutionalized spouses in these cases are individuals who have established a trust pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(2). The SBO trusts at issue are irrevocable trusts, meaning the principal of each trust is not automatically rendered available to the institutionalized spouse. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(A) and (B). Furthermore, the property and income that make up the principal of the SBO trusts at issue are not held by the institutionalized spouses or the community spouses. Rather, title to the property that is now the principal of each trust was transferred to the trust or trustee, and the money that forms part of the principal was moved into bank accounts controlled by the trustee. There also has been no suggestion that the community spouses retain possession of the tangible property that forms the principals of the trusts. Therefore, the principals of the SBO trusts are not automatically considered resources available to any of the spouses under 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c). Accordingly, the principal of each SBO trust can be considered a resource available to the institutionalized spouse, and thus a countable asset, only if made so by operation of the any-circumstances rule in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, each of the SBO trusts at issue instructs the trustee to "use up" or deplete the entirety of the principal during the community spouse's lifetime. All three SBO trusts also include language instructing the trustees to distribute the assets "on a[n] actuarially sound basis," which means that the "spending must be at a rate that will use up all the resources during the person's lifetime." BEM 405 (July 1, 2014), p. 12. However, the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that, because the community spouses could be paid by the trusts, this automatically created a " 'condition under which the principal could be paid to or on behalf of the person from an irrevocable trust,' " meaning that "the assets in each trust were properly determined to be countable assets by the Department. BEM 401 at 12." Hegadorn v. Dep't of Human Servs. Dir. , 320 Mich. App. 549, 563-564, 904 N.W.2d 904 (2017). The Court of Appeals read the word "person" in BEM 401 as referring to both the applicants and their spouses in all circumstances. As already discussed, the rule in BEM 401 is derived from 42 U.S.C. 1396a and the any-circumstances rule in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). The any-circumstances rule makes assets in an irrevocable trust available to a Medicaid applicant only if there are circumstances under which "a payment from the trust" could be made "to or for the benefit of" the applicant. 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). The Department's contrary interpretation and application of BEM 401 , which incorporates the federal any-circumstances rule into Michigan's Medicaid policies, is not entitled to respectful consideration because it is foreclosed by the text of 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). See Rovas , 482 Mich. at 108, 754 N.W.2d 259. In determining whether payments can be made from a trust to an individual or for the individual's benefit, CMS instructs the Department to "take into account any restrictions on payments, such as use restrictions, exculpatory clauses, or limits on trustee discretion that may be included in the trust." CMS, State Medicaid Manual , § 3259.6(E) (rev. 64), p. 3-3-109.30. The SBO trusts at issue all contain language stating that distributions or payments from the trust may only be made to or for the benefit of the respective community spouse and that the trust resources may be used only for the community spouse's benefit . The ALJs and the Court of Appeals recognized this but erred by concluding that payments to or for the benefit of the community spouses were available to the institutionalized spouses. Because the community spouses are not themselves applying for or receiving Medicaid benefits, they are not "the individual" referred to in 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B). Thus, the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the possibility of a distribution from each SBO trust to each community spouse automatically made the assets held by each SBO trust countable assets for the purposes of the respective institutionalized spouses' initial eligibility determination. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment because it was premised on an incorrect reading of the controlling statutes and thus was contrary to law. It follows that the ALJs' decisions are also contrary to law and cannot stand, given that they all suffer from the same faulty reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See MCL 24.306(1)(a) and (f). The question now becomes what relief should be granted. The APA gives this Court some discretion in crafting relief that is appropriate to each case arising from an administrative appeal. See MCL 24.306(2) ("The court, as appropriate, may affirm, reverse or modify the decision or order or remand the case for further proceedings."). The sheer complexity of the Medicaid program and the Department's legitimate concerns about potential abuse are paramount considerations in determining what relief is warranted. We further note that, given the reasoning employed in resolving the administrative appeals, the ALJs may have forgone consideration of alternative avenues of legal analysis. In light of these concerns, we decline to order that the Department approve plaintiffs' Medicaid applications at this time. Instead, we vacate the final administrative hearing decision in each case and remand each case to the appropriate administrative tribunal for the proper application of the any-circumstances test. If the ALJs determine that circumstances exist under which payments from the trusts could be made to or for the benefit of the institutionalized spouse, then the ALJs should explain this rationale and affirm the Department's decision. However, if no such circumstances exist, the ALJs should reverse the Department's decisions and order that the Medicaid applications be approved. V. CONCLUSION Neither 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 nor 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d) automatically makes marital assets placed in an irrevocable trust for the sole benefit of a community spouse countable assets for the purpose of an institutionalized spouse's initial eligibility determination. Rather, such assets become countable only if circumstances exist under which the trust could make a payment to or for the benefit of the institutionalized spouse. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Because the ALJs' decisions were largely grounded in the same flawed legal reasoning that was employed by the Court of Appeals, we vacate the final hearing decision of the ALJ in each case. We remand all three cases for any additional administrative proceedings necessary to evaluate the legal validity of the Department's decision to deny each plaintiff's Medicaid application. See MCL 24.306(2). We do not retain jurisdiction. McCormack, C.J., and Markman, Zahra, Viviano, and Clement, JJ., concurred with Bernstein, J. The original plaintiffs, Mary Hegadorn, Dorothy Lollar, and Roselyn Ford, are now deceased, and the personal representatives of their respective estates have continued this action on their behalf. For ease of reference, this opinion will use "plaintiffs" to refer collectively to the original plaintiffs who initiated these proceedings. An "institutionalized spouse" is a person who is in a "medical institution or nursing facility" or who is described in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI), is likely to meet these requirements "for at least 30 consecutive days," and is married to a person who is not in such a facility. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(h)(1)(A) and (B). A "community spouse" is "the spouse of an institutionalized spouse." 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(h)(2). The parties and the Court of Appeals often refer to the SBO trusts at issue as "Medicaid trusts." This is an accurate label under state regulations, although the label is not used in the federal Medicaid statutes. A Medicaid trust is any trust or trust-like instrument that meets the following five criteria: (1) "[T]he person whose resources were transferred to the trust is someone whose assets or income must be counted to determine [Medicaid] eligibility"; (2) the trust was established by the person, the person's spouse, or someone else acting in place of or at the direction of the person or the person's spouse; (3) "[t]he trust was established on or after August 11, 1993"; (4) the trust was not established by will; and (5) the trust is not a "special needs trust" or "pooled trust" as defined by state regulations. See Michigan Department of Human Services, Bridges Eligibility Manual (BEM) 401 , BPB 2014-015 (July 1, 2014), pp. 5-7. It is undisputed that the trusts at issue meet these criteria. The Department of Community Health was merged with the Department of Human Services in 2015 after the plaintiffs in Docket Nos. 156132 and 156133 filed their complaints. The combined agency is now the Department of Health and Human Services. Executive Order No. 2015-4. See In re Rasmer Estate , 501 Mich. 18, 26 n. 3, 903 N.W.2d 800 (2017). The Court of Appeals also held that it was permissible for the Department to apply changes in its application of BEM 401 and in its reading of the federal Medicaid statutes to applications filed before such changes occurred. We need not reach this issue, because we have determined that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the controlling Medicaid statutes. We note that the Ford Trust and Lollar Trust also reserve to the community spouses a special testamentary power of appointment, which allows them to appoint, by will, items or funds held by the trust directly to their children or their children's descendants. This power does not allow for appointments to any other individuals or entities. By completing a "1634 agreement," a state may request that the Social Security Administration (SSA) make certain Medicaid eligibility determinations when making SSI eligibility determinations and agree to provide Medicaid benefits to those individuals whom the SSA deems eligible. Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (SSA POMS ), SI 01730.010 (February 6, 2013), available at < https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0501730010> (accessed May 2, 2019) [https://perma.cc/23YU-EYDR]. In states that execute a 1634 agreement, like Michigan, an application for SSI benefits is also an application for Medicaid benefits. SSA POMS , SI 01730.005 (February 6, 2013), available at < https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0501730005> (accessed May 2, 2019) [https://perma.cc/2L5F-6NWX]. Congress later repealed most of the MCCA through the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989, PL 101-234 ; 103 Stat. 1979, but the spousal-impoverishment-prevention provisions contained in 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 were retained. There are also provisions, which are not at issue here, that subject an applicant to penalties for nonexempt transfers of resources during the five-year look-back period. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(c)(1) through (5). Additional rules governing the evaluation of annuities were added by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, PL 109-171 ; 120 Stat. 4, and codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396p(c)(1)(F) and (G), but they also are not at issue here, and their enactment did not modify the Medicaid trust rules codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d). The State Medicaid Manual is published by the CMS to help guide states in administering the Medicaid program. The manual is not a product of formal rulemaking and does not have the force of law. Hobbs ex rel. Hobbs v. Zenderman , 579 F.3d 1171, 1186 n. 10 (CA 10, 2009). However, federal courts generally consider the manual to be strong persuasive authority to the extent that it is consistent with the purpose and text of federal statutes. Id . ; Hughes v. McCarthy , 734 F.3d 473, 478 (CA 6, 2013). While 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 does not use the terms "countable" and "exempt," it provides that the term "resources" does not include those things excluded by 42 U.S.C. 1382b(a) or (d). See 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(c)(5). Items excluded under those sections include the couple's home, 42 U.S.C. 1382b(a)(1) ; household goods and personal effects, 42 U.S.C. 1382b(a)(2)(A) ; and funds set aside for burial expenses, 42 U.S.C. 1382b(d). Any income payable solely to a community spouse from a trust is considered to be income available only to that community spouse. 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(b)(2)(B)(ii) (stating that if income is paid solely to the institutionalized spouse or the community spouse, "the income shall be considered available only to that respective spouse[.]"). Generally, the MCCA preserves a community spouse's income for that spouse so as to avoid affecting the institutionalized spouse's eligibility for Medicaid. See Blumer , 534 U.S. at 480-481, 122 S.Ct. 962. While "held" is undefined in the statute, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) relevantly defines "hold" as "to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal[.]" "When a word or phrase is not defined by the statute in question, it is appropriate to consult dictionary definitions to determine [its] plain and ordinary meaning ...." People v. Rea , 500 Mich. 422, 428, 902 N.W.2d 362 (2017). Black's Law Dictionary similarly defines a "trustee" as "[s]omeone who stands in a fiduciary or confidential relation to another; esp., one who, having legal title to property, holds it in trust for the benefit of another and owes a fiduciary duty to that beneficiary." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). Paragraph (4) provides special rules for the treatment of three types of trusts that are not at issue in this appeal. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4). 42 U.S.C. 1396p(h) provides the following definition of "assets": (1) The term "assets", with respect to an individual, includes all income and resources of the individual and of the individual's spouse, including any income or resources which the individual or such individual's spouse is entitled to but does not receive because of action- (A) by the individual or such individual's spouse, (B) by a person, including a court or administrative body, with legal authority to act in place of or on behalf of the individual or such individual's spouse, or (C) by any person, including any court or administrative body, acting at the direction or upon the request of the individual or such individual's spouse. The Court of Appeals cited this definition for the proposition that "Congress has clearly indicated that an institutionalized individual's assets include not only those that he or she has, but also those that his or her spouse has, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(h)(1), and that remains true even when those assets are placed into a trust by the spouse, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii)." Hegadorn v. Dep't of Human Servs. Dir. , 320 Mich. App. 549, 569, 904 N.W.2d 904 (2017). This statement is partially correct. Generally speaking, marital assets are considered jointly and, before the trusts were formed, income and resources belonging to the community spouse would be considered assets of the institutionalized spouse. However, once resources are moved into an irrevocable trust, they cease being assets owned or held by either spouse and become assets owned and held by the trust or trustee. Moreover, transferring one's income and property to one's spouse or directly into a trust is not an "action ... by the individual or such individual's spouse" that deprives either spouse of "resources which the individual or such individual's spouse is entitled to ...." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(h)(1). Resources that one presently has both title to and possession of are not resources that one is entitled to in the future, and transferring away such resources does not trigger 42 U.S.C. 1396p(h)(1). This is consistent with CMS's interpretation of the definition of "asset," see CMS, State Medicaid Manual , § 3257(B)(3) (rev. 64), which lists among the examples of actions that trigger the asset rule: (a) waiving the right to payment of pension income, (b) waiving a right to receive an inheritance, (c) rejecting or refusing to accept injury settlements, and (d) diverting tort settlements. Each example presents a situation in which someone has a legal right to receive income or property in the future, but that right is never realized because of some affirmative action. Such conditions do not exist here. If assets held by a trust are not assets available to the Medicaid applicant, then those trust assets are treated as assets transferred by the applicant, which may subject the applicant to divestment penalties. See 42 U.S.C. 1396p(c). As the Department has stated, divestment penalties are not at issue in this appeal. See Appellee's Brief, p. 14. The State Medicaid Manual generally uses the term "individual" in the same manner: "Individuals to Whom Trust Provisions Apply.--This section applies to any individual who establishes a trust and who is an applicant for or recipient of Medicaid." CMS, State Medicaid Manual , § 3259.3 (rev. 64), p. 3-3-109.26. According to CMS, there may be an exception to this rule when the community spouse is acting on the applicant's behalf. See CMS, State Medicaid Manual , § 3259.6(D), p. 3-3-109.29 ("Payments are considered to be made to the individual when any amount from the trust ... is paid directly to the individual or to someone acting on his/her behalf , e.g., a guardian or legal representative .") (emphasis added). However, we need not reach this issue today. The Department further argues that BEM 401 requires evaluating a Medicaid applicant's resources under both the Medicaid and the SSI any-circumstances rules. We find no legal support for this proposition. First, as already discussed, BEM 401 cites 42 U.S.C. 1396a and 42 U.S.C. 1396p as the legal basis for the rule, not 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e). Second, Michigan's state Medicaid plan states that the Department "complies with the provisions of section 1917d of the [Social Security] Act, as amended by OBRA 93, with regard to trusts." Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, State Plan Under Title XIX of the Social Security Act Medical Assistance Program , Attachment 2.6A, p. 26 (effective July 1, 1996). Section 1917d is codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d), not 42 U.S.C. 1382b(e). Third, the Department's argument is foreclosed by 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(G), which instructs a state to "disregard the provisions of subsections (c) and (e) of section [42 U.S.C.] 1382b" when it applies the "eligibility criteria of the [SSI] program under subchapter XVI for purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan of an individual who is not receiving [SSI] ...." Congress added 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(G) and the SSI trust rules with the enactment of the Foster Care Independence Act. Plaintiffs here are medically needy applicants who are not receiving SSI; therefore, 42 U.S.C. 1382b(c) and (e) do not apply to evaluating their eligibility for Medicaid benefits. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts interprets the any-circumstances rule, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i), in the same manner. See Daley v. Secretary of Executive Office of Health & Human Servs. , 477 Mass. 188, 193, 74 N.E.3d 1269 (2017) ("The effect of the [any-circumstances] test is that if the trustee is afforded even a 'peppercorn of discretion' to make payment of principal to the applicant, or if the trust allows such payment based on certain conditions, then the entire amount that the applicant could receive under 'any state of affairs' is the amount counted for Medicaid eligibility."). 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(a)(1) states: In determining the eligibility for medical assistance of an institutionalized spouse (as defined in subsection (h)(1)), the provisions of this section supersede any other provision of this subchapter (including sections 1396a(a)(17) and 1396a(f) of this title) which is inconsistent with them. See Lollar Trust, § 2.2 ("Trustee shall from time to time during the fiscal year pay or distribute to me, or for my sole benefit, during my lifetime ... part or all of the net income and principal .... During my lifetime, no Resources of the Trust can be used for anyone other than me, except for Trustee fees."); Hegadorn Trust, § 2.2 ("Trustee shall from time to time during the fiscal year pay or distribute to me, or for my sole benefit, during my lifetime ... part or all of the net income and principal .... During my lifetime, no Resources of the Trust can be used for anyone other than me."); Ford Trust, § 2.2 ("Trustee shall from time to time during the fiscal year pay or distribute to me, or for my sole benefit, during my lifetime ... part of the net income and principal .... During my lifetime, no Resources of the Trust may be used for anyone other than me, except for Trustee Fees."). We note that CMS has advised that "the individual" might sometimes include an applicant's spouse when that spouse is acting on behalf of the applicant. See CMS, State Medicaid Manual , § 3257(B)(1), p. 3-3-109 ("As used in this instruction, the term 'individual' includes the individual himself or herself, as well as ... [t]he individual's spouse, where the spouse is acting in the place of or on behalf of the individual [.]") (emphasis added); § 3259.6(D), p. 3-3-109.29 ("Payments are considered to be made to the individual when any amount from the trust ... is paid directly to the individual or to someone acting on his/her behalf , e.g., a guardian or legal representative .") (emphasis added). There are documents in the administrative record indicating that Mr. Hegadorn was made the legal guardian of his wife prior to creating the Hegadorn Trust and that Mrs. Lollar granted to her husband a durable power of attorney prior to the creation of the Lollar Trust. ALJ Lain made no findings of fact or conclusions of law with regard to these legal instruments, and the Department has not argued that these documents should affect our analysis. Accordingly, we decline to address whether these legal instruments affect plaintiffs' eligibility for benefits at this time. We acknowledge that our decision on this issue is at odds with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Johnson v. Guhl , 357 F.3d 403, 408-409 (CA 3, 2004) (holding that 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i) is satisfied if "[o]nce the community spouse receives these payments, there is nothing preventing her or him from sharing them with the institutionalized spouse as well."). While the Third Circuit appears to agree that "the individual" refers to an applicant for or recipient of Medicaid benefits, its conclusory analysis disregards the statutory language requiring that the payment be a "payment from the trust " that "could be made to or for the benefit of the individual." 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i) (emphasis added). The Third Circuit's broad language also effectively reads away any difference in the language used in the § 1396p(d)(3) any-circumstances rule and the § 1382b(e) any-circumstances rule.

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of the Michigan Manufacturers Association and the Michigan Retailers Association to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The amicus brief from those groups will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before August 30, 2019.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Taxation Section of the State Bar of Michigan to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 7, 2019, is accepted for filing.

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.

O'Connell, P.J. These consolidated cases arise out of a fatal car crash. Defendant Eaton County Road Commission appeals as of right the trial court's order denying the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). The parties dispute the retroactivity of Streng v. Bd. of Mackinac Co. Rd. Comm'rs , 315 Mich. App. 449, 890 N.W.2d 680 (2016), holding that the notice provision at MCL 224.21(3) in the highway code, MCL 220.1 et seq ., rather than the notice provision at MCL 691.1404(1) in the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq ., governs a claim brought against a county road commission. We hold that Streng applies retroactively. We reverse the trial court's order ruling otherwise, although we affirm the trial court's ruling that the Road Commission was not required to assert defective notice as an affirmative defense, and we remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2015, Melissa Musser, whose estate is a defendant, was driving a minivan owned by defendant Patricia Musser. Plaintiff Joseph Grinage and Brendon Pearce, whose estate is a plaintiff, were passengers in the car. Melissa lost control of the minivan when she came to standing water in the roadway. The minivan went off the road, rolled over, and came to rest on its roof against a tree. Everyone except Pearce had been drinking, and the minivan was traveling about 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. Pearce died at the scene of the crash. Melissa died at the hospital. Grinage was seriously injured. On May 5, 2015, Lynn Pearce, the personal representative of the estate of Brendon Pearce, served a "Notice to Eaton County of Fatal Injuries due to Defective Highway" on the Road Commission. Grinage served a "Notice of Intent to File a Claim" on the Road Commission on July 2, 2015. Grinage and Pearce each filed a complaint, alleging that the Musser defendants were negligent and that the Road Commission breached its statutory duty under MCL 691.1402 to maintain the roads. In Pearce's case, the Road Commission first filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that Pearce's notice was inadequate. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. The Road Commission appealed the trial court's decision. Pearce then filed a motion to affirm on appeal, arguing that her notice was sufficient under Streng and the provision in MCL 224.21(3) that the notice should state "substantially" the details of the injury. This Court granted Pearce's motion to affirm. The Road Commission sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which denied leave to appeal. After this Court granted Pearce's motion to affirm, the Road Commission returned to the trial court and filed a motion for summary disposition in the consolidated cases, arguing that all three plaintiffs' notices were insufficient under MCL 224.21(3). The parties disputed whether Streng applied retroactively and whether MCL 224.21(3), as applied in Streng , or MCL 691.1404(1), the GTLA notice provision, governed plaintiffs' notices. Two of the plaintiffs further argued that the Road Commission waived its challenge to plaintiffs' notices because it did not assert defective notice under MCL 224.21 as an affirmative defense. The trial court denied the Road Commission's motion. The trial court rejected Pearce's argument that the Road Commission was required to assert insufficient notice as an affirmative defense because inadequate notice was a component of governmental immunity, which is not an affirmative defense. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded that Streng did not apply retroactively because it announced a new rule, reliance on the old rule was widespread, and retroactive application of Streng would adversely affect the administration of justice. II. DISCUSSION This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Stevenson v. Detroit , 264 Mich. App. 37, 40, 689 N.W.2d 239 (2004). This Court also reviews the legal question of retroactivity de novo. Johnson v. White , 261 Mich. App. 332, 336, 682 N.W.2d 505 (2004). Summary disposition is proper if a party has "immunity granted by law...." MCR 2.116(C)(7). When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under Subrule (C)(7), this Court reviews the documentary evidence and accepts the plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true unless documentation contradicts those allegations. Stevenson , 264 Mich. App. at 40, 689 N.W.2d 239. Governmental agencies are generally immune from liability when they are performing a governmental function, unless otherwise provided by statute. MCL 691.1407(1) ; Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 455, 890 N.W.2d 680. The GTLA provides that the "liability, procedure, and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in ... MCL 224.21." MCL 691.1402(1). MCL 224.21(3) contains a notice provision requiring potential plaintiffs to give notice to the clerk and the chairperson of the board of county road commissioners within 60 days of the injury. For all other highway defect claims, the GTLA's 120-day notice provision at MCL 691.1404(1) governs. In 2016, this Court held that MCL 224.21(3) governs claims brought against county road commissions. Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 462-463, 890 N.W.2d 680. In May 2018, a panel of this Court concluded that Streng applies prospectively only. Brugger v. Midland Co. Bd. of Rd. Commr's , 324 Mich. App. 307, 920 N.W.2d 388 (2018). That decision, however, does not cite or discuss W A Foote Mem. Hosp. v. Mich. Assigned Claims Plan , 321 Mich. App. 159, 909 N.W.2d 38 (2017), issued in August 2017, soon after the trial court's order in this case. In Foote , a panel of this Court addressed the retroactivity of a judicial interpretation of a statute. "A panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule of law established by a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after November 1, 1990, that has not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, or by a special panel of the Court of Appeals as provided in this rule." MCR 7.215(J)(1). Because Foote was published before Brugger and controls the issue in this case, we are required to follow W A Foote . Foote , 321 Mich. App. at 182-183, 909 N.W.2d 38, followed the retroactivity test announced in Spectrum Health Hosps. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. , 492 Mich. 503, 536, 821 N.W.2d 117 (2012) : " 'The general principle is that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former decision is bad law, but that it never was the law.' " This principle does have an exception: When a ''statute law has received a given construction by the courts of last resort and contracts have been made and rights acquired under and in accordance with such construction, such contracts may not be invalidated, nor vested rights acquired under them impaired, by a change of construction made by a subsequent decision.'' [ Spectrum Health , 492 Mich. at 536, 821 N.W.2d 117, quoting Gentzler v. Constantine Village Clerk , 320 Mich. 394, 398, 31 N.W.2d 668 (1948) (citation omitted).] The Foote Court noted that this rule only pertains to the retroactivity of decisions interpreting a statute, Foote , 321 Mich.App. at 190 n. 15, 909 N.W.2d 38, and concluded that the Spectrum Health test, the Supreme Court's most recent resolution of a retroactivity question, overrides the "threshold" test and the "three-factor" test. Id . at 191, 909 N.W.2d 38. The threshold test asks whether the decision announces a new rule of law. Id . at 177, 909 N.W.2d 38. If so, the three-factor test considers "(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice." Id . at 193, 909 N.W.2d 38 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Foote, id. at 189-195, 909 N.W.2d 38, applied the Spectrum Health test, the threshold test, and the three-factor test to conclude that a recent Supreme Court decision overruling prior precedent applied retroactively. Because the interpretation of statutory text was not new law, retroactivity was proper under the Spectrum Health test and the threshold test. Id . at 189-192, 909 N.W.2d 38. In addition, the exception in the Spectrum Health test did not apply because the plaintiff's claim was based on the absence of a contract and the plaintiff's claim did not arise from a Supreme Court case. Id . at 191 n. 17, 909 N.W.2d 38. Finally, applying the three-factor test, the Court concluded that the purpose of the "new" rule was to conform caselaw to the terms of the statute, noted that the parties had extensively relied on prior caselaw, but decided that promoting consistency in the law served the administration of justice. Id . at 193-195, 909 N.W.2d 38. Foote controls this case in all respects. First, Streng followed the Supreme Court's decision in Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd. Comm. , 477 Mich. 197, 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007), and interpreted the text of MCL 224.21, so Streng is not new law. For the same reason, Streng is retroactive under the threshold test. In addition, plaintiffs' claims do not meet the exception in the Spectrum Health retroactivity test. The parties' dispute in this case does not arise out of a contract, and plaintiffs' claims do not find support in Rowland . Streng is also retroactive using the three-factor test. The trial court and plaintiffs championed widespread reliance on the "old" rule and the unjust effect of applying Streng retroactively. Foote , 321 Mich. App. at 195, 909 N.W.2d 38, decided that the proper, consistent interpretation of the statutory text outweighed these reliance concerns. Further, the cause of action in this case can defeat governmental immunity, which is especially significant for enforcing only those causes of action enacted by the Legislature, as noted in the context of no-fault benefits in Foote, id. at 192, 909 N.W.2d 38. Accordingly, the trial court erred by ruling that Streng did not apply retroactively. Applying Streng and MCL 224.21(3), plaintiffs' notices were noncompliant. MCL 224.21(3) requires service of the notice of defect on the Road Commission and the county clerk within 60 days of the accident. MCL 224.21(3) ; Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 466-467, 890 N.W.2d 680. It is not clear if Grinage served his notice on the county clerk. Even if he did, his notice was deficient because he served it more than 60 days after the accident. Pearce's notice was defective because she only served it on the Road Commission, not the county clerk, even though the notice was timely. Therefore, the trial court erred by measuring plaintiffs' notices against MCL 691.1404(1) and finding them sufficient. Finally, the trial court determined that the Road Commission was not required to plead defective notice under MCL 224.21 as an affirmative defense. We agree. Governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense. Kendricks v. Rehfield , 270 Mich. App. 679, 681, 716 N.W.2d 623 (2006). Rather, it is a characteristic of government, and a plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity. Mack v. Detroit , 467 Mich. 186, 203, 649 N.W.2d 47 (2002). The notice provision is an integral component of defeating governmental immunity. Interpreting the effect of a notice provision at MCL 600.6431, the Supreme Court held that this provision "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity conferred by the GTLA, which expressly incorporates MCL 600.6431." Fairley v. Dep't of Corrections , 497 Mich. 290, 297, 871 N.W.2d 129 (2015). Similarly, MCL 691.1402(1) in the GTLA refers to MCL 224.21 for claims brought against county road commissions, and this section includes the notice provision at MCL 224.21(3). Therefore, the notice requirements in MCL 224.21(3), including the deadline and service requirements, are a component of pleading a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity. Accordingly, the burden was on plaintiffs to meet the requirements for bringing a claim against the Road Commission. The trial court correctly rejected the argument that the Road Commission waived its challenge to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notices by failing to plead defective notice as an affirmative defense. III. CONCLUSION We reverse the trial court's denial of the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition. We hold that Streng applies retroactively and that plaintiffs' notices were deficient under MCL 224.21(3). We affirm the trial court's ruling that the Road Commission was not required to plead defective notice as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to grant the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. K. F. Kelly and Riordan, JJ., concurred with O'Connell, P.J. Harston v. Eaton Co. , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 20, 2017 (Docket Nos. 338981 and 338990). In addition, by the parties' stipulation, we previously dismissed Ryan Harston as a plaintiff. Harston v. Eaton Co. , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 25, 2018 (Docket No. 338981). Pearce Estate v. Eaton Co. Rd. Comm. , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 25, 2016 (Docket No. 333387). Pearce v. Eaton County Rd. Comm. , 500 Mich. 1021, 896 N.W.2d 433 (2017). At oral argument in the present case, counsel for appellant stated that he had informed the Brugger panel that Foote controlled the outcome of the Brugger case. Even if we were not required to follow Foote , we would agree with Judge O'Brien 's excellent dissent in Brugger . In response to plaintiffs' reliance on Pohutski v. City of Allen Park , 465 Mich. 675, 641 N.W.2d 219 (2002), and Tebo v. Havlik , 418 Mich. 350, 343 N.W.2d 181 (1984), Foote , 321 Mich. App. at 186 n. 14, 195 n. 19, 909 N.W.2d 38, noted that the Supreme Court effectively repudiated Pohutski and undermined Tebo in Spectrum Health . In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly demonstrated that interpreting the straightforward statutory text merits overruling prior precedent and applying its interpretation retroactively. See Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm. , 477 Mich. 197, 220-222, 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007) (applying its decision retroactively to restore the law to what was mandated by the statutory text); Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 473 Mich. 562, 587, 702 N.W.2d 539 (2005) (same). See also Wayne County v. Hathcock , 471 Mich. 445, 483-484, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004) (applying its decision retroactively to give effect to a constitutional provision). Even if we were not bound to follow Foote , we note that MCL 224.21(3) has always been the law and is currently the law. No changes have been made to this statute, so we are required to apply it as written. That is, the issue in this case concerns statutory interpretation, not retroactivity. Streng addressed this concern by noting that Rowland discarded the entirety of the analysis in Brown v. Manistee County Rd. Comm. , 452 Mich. 354, 361-364, 550 N.W.2d 215 (1996), overruled by Rowland , 477 Mich. 197, 731 N.W.2d 41, as " 'deeply flawed[,]' " Rowland did not mention MCL 224.21 or discuss the notice deadline, and Rowland did not approve or disapprove of the use of one notice provision over another. Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 459-460, 890 N.W.2d 680 (citation omitted). Pearce maintains that the Road Commission has taken inconsistent positions on the applicability of Streng . Pearce is correct that the Road Commission strenuously objected to Streng as wrongly decided in Pearce's prior appeal, but Pearce invoked Streng to argue that her notice was substantially compliant. When this Court granted Pearce's motion to affirm, the Road Commission reasonably understood Streng to be controlling. Therefore, we are not concerned by the Road Commission's apparent about-face.

Per Curiam. Plaintiffs Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution (CPMC), Joseph Spyke, and Jeanne Daunt seek a writ of mandamus that orders defendants Secretary of State (the Secretary) and the Board of State Canvassers (the Board) to reject an initiative petition filed by Voters Not Politicians (VNP) concerning the formation of an independent citizens commission to oversee legislative redistricting and to not place the petition on the 2018 general-election ballot. Intervening defendants Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee and Count MI Vote, both doing business as VNP, Kathryn A. Fahey, William R. Bobier, and Davia C. Downey filed a cross-complaint, asking this Court to direct defendants to immediately execute their clear legal duties regarding the initiative petition. We deny the relief sought in the complaint for a writ of mandamus and grant the cross-complaint. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. THE PARTIES Plaintiff CPMC is a ballot-question committee. Plaintiff Spyke is a qualified elector registered to vote in Ingham County and is a former paid employee of a political candidate. Plaintiff Daunt, a qualified elector registered to vote in Genesee County, is the parent of a person otherwise disqualified from serving on the proposed commission. Defendant Secretary is the chief election officer of the state and has supervisory authority over local election officials. MCL 168.21. See also Const. 1963, art. 5, § 3. Defendant Board is a constitutionally created board. Const. 1963, art. 2, § 7. Its duties are established by law. See MCL 168.22(2) and MCL 168.841. The Board canvasses initiative petitions to determine if the requisite number of qualified and registered electors have signed the petition. It makes the final decision regarding the sufficiency of the petition. MCL 168.476. Intervening defendant VNP Ballot Committee is a ballot-question committee. Intervening defendant Fahey, a qualified elector registered to vote in Kent County, is the founder and treasurer of VNP. Intervening defendant Bobier, who signed the VNP petition, is a qualified elector registered to vote in Oceana County and a former elected member of the Michigan House of Representatives. Intervening defendant Downey, who signed the VNP petition, is a qualified elector registered to vote in Ingham County. B. THE INITIATIVE PETITION On June 28, 2017, VNP Ballot Committee filed an initiative petition for the ballot proposal (the VNP Proposal) with the Secretary as required by MCL 168.471. After staff at the Bureau of Elections (the Bureau) initially refused to recommend that the petition be approved, VNP redrafted the proposal to further address issues of abrogation and alteration. The Board approved the form of the petition on August 17, 2017, noting that its approval did not extend to the substance of the proposal, the substance of the summary of the proposal, the manner in which the proposal language is affixed to the petition, or whether the petition properly characterizes those provisions of the 1963 Michigan Constitution that have been altered or abrogated. On December 18, 2017, VNP submitted the initiative petition, supported by more than 425,000 signatures of registered voters, for an amendment to the Constitution to be placed on the November 2018 general-election ballot. Primarily, the VNP Proposal would amend Article 4, § 6 of Michigan's 1963 Constitution regarding the commission on legislative redistricting by changing the composition of the commission and its administration. A new independent citizens commission would have exclusive authority to develop and establish redistricting plans for the senate, the house and congressional districts. To prevent the VNP Proposal from appearing on the ballot, and before the Board could certify the petition as sufficient or insufficient, counsel for CPMC sent a letter to the Secretary, urging her to reject the VNP Proposal on the ground that it should not be submitted to voters because it was massive and would enact sweeping changes to the Constitution. CPMC contended that it was a general revision of the Constitution and that it therefore could not be accomplished by ballot initiative. Further, the VNP Proposal purportedly omitted multiple sections of the Constitution that would be abrogated by the proposal. CPMC asserted that the Secretary had a clear legal duty to reject the petition. Counsel for VNP then sent a letter to the Board, requesting that it certify the VNP Proposal for the November 2018 general-election ballot. VNP observed that no challenges to the 428,587 signatures had been filed by the deadline. Further, VNP stated that two separate entities had analyzed the sampled signatures and determined that 466 out of 505 sample signatures were valid, thereby confirming that a sufficient number of signatures support the proposal. VNP indicated that the instant suit by CPMC was irrelevant to the Board's clear legal duty to certify the VNP Proposal. On May 22, 2018, the Bureau released its staff report pursuant to MCL 168.476(3). In the report, the Bureau staff recommended that the Board certify the petition. After plaintiffs filed the instant complaint for mandamus, intervening defendants moved to intervene. This Court granted the motion to intervene and accepted the cross-complaint filed by intervening defendants. Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 11, 2018 (Docket No. 343517). The Board notes that it must complete its canvass of the VNP petition at least two months before the November 2018 general election. Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 ; MCL 168.476(2) ; MCL 168.477(1). The Director of Elections also must prepare a statement of not more than 100 words-regarding the purpose of the proposed amendment-for placement on the ballot. MCL 168.32(2). C. BACKGROUND VNP asserts that its proposal is "a desired means to remedy the widely-perceived abuses associated with partisan 'gerrymandering'[ ] of state legislative and congressional election districts by the establishment of new constitutionally-mandated procedures designed to ensure that the redistricting process can no longer be dominated by one political party." More than a century ago, Chief Justice MORSE of our Supreme Court warned that the "greatest danger to our free institutions" occurs when a political party retains its political power by dividing election districts in a manner to give special advantages to one group. Giddings v. Secretary of State , 93 Mich. 1, 13, 52 N.W. 944 (1892) ( MORSE , C.J., concurring). He explained the danger as follows: By this system of gerrymandering, if permitted, a political party may control for years the government, against the wishes, protests, and votes of a majority of the people of the State, each Legislature, chosen by such means, perpetuating its political power by like legislation from one apportionment to another. [ Id. ][ ] Ninety years later, our Supreme Court commented that "[i]n many states, the most egregious gerrymandering is practiced by the Legislature with the aid of computers to achieve results which will pass muster under federal standards yet favor the partisan interests of the dominant political faction." In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1982, 413 Mich. 96, 137, 321 N.W.2d 565 (1982). In short, "[i]t is axiomatic that apportionment is of overwhelming importance to the political parties." In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1992, 439 Mich. 715, 716, 486 N.W.2d 639 (1992). Or, as Senator John Cornyn of Texas once said, " 'You can't take the politics out of politics, and there is nothing more political than redistricting.' " We are not alone in analyzing redistricting issues. Challenges to alleged unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering are pending in the United States Supreme Court in two cases. Further, suit has been brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to contest Michigan's existing apportionment plan. In the United States, a minority of states employ a nonpartisan independent mechanism for the drawing of legislative districts. In most of the remaining states, including Michigan, whichever party is in control of the state Legislature draws the districts. D. THE 1963 CONSTITUTION-REDISTRICTING Under the 1963 Michigan Constitution, the 38 members of Michigan's senate and the 110 members of the house of representatives are elected according to the district in which they reside. The Constitution sets forth the apportionment factors and rules for individual districts, which are redrawn after the publication of the total population within the federal decennial census. Const. 1963, art. 4. The apportionment of districts for representatives and senators is not a recent phenomenon: the Michigan Constitution of 1835 addressed apportionment and set forth parameters for representative districting and for senate districts. Fifteen years later, Article 4 was revised to provide for the division of a county into representative districts, when necessary, by board of supervisors. The 1908 Constitution continued the division of counties into districts by a board of supervisors. In the general election in 1952, the voters passed Proposition 3, which amended Articles 2 and 4 of § 5 of the 1908 Constitution to establish senate districts with geographic boundaries that were not subject to alteration based on a population change. After the 1961 Constitutional Convention, the 1963 Constitution called for districts to be apportioned under a weighted formula based on land area and population. Under the current Constitution, senate districts are aligned with Michigan's counties, each of which is assigned an apportionment factor based on the state's population as set by the federal census, multiplied by four and the county's percentage of the state's total land area. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 2. The Constitution also sets forth particular rules for the dividing of the state into senatorial districts. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 2. House districts are defined by representative areas that "shall consist of compact and convenient territory contiguous by land." Id. The districts also are defined by county and based on population. Id. After one representative is assigned to each representative area as already defined, the remaining house seats are apportioned on the basis of population. Id. Counties that are entitled to two or more representatives are divided into single-member representative districts that are created on the basis of population. If possible those districts should follow city and township boundaries and "be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly square in shape as possible." Id. Representative areas that contain more than one county and are entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts, which adhere to county lines and are as equal as possible in population. Id. Thus, over half a century ago, the Constitution of 1963 established criteria and procedures to appoint a commission to decide the apportionment of legislative districts for the Senate and the House of Representatives. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6 ; In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1972 , 387 Mich. 442, 450, 197 N.W.2d 249 (1972) ("The people in adopting the 1963 State Constitution, provided the procedure to carry out legislative reapportionment."). The Constitution provided for an eight-member commission whose purpose was to "district and apportion the senate and house of representatives according to the provisions of this constitution." Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 5. A new commission would be appointed whenever the Constitution requires apportionment or districting. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 3. Four members were selected by the state organizations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 1. The state political organizations also selected a resident from four specific regions, including the upper peninsula and three portions of the lower peninsula-the north, the southwest, and the southeast. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 1. With two exceptions, commission members could not be officers or government employees and could not serve in the Legislature for two years after the apportionment in which they participated became effective. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 2. Members held office until the apportionment they worked on became operative. Id. When a majority of the commission could not agree on redistricting, the members could submit a proposed plan to our Supreme Court. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 7. The Supreme Court was required to "determine which plan complie[d] most accurately with the constitutional requirements and ... direct that it be adopted by the commission and published as provided in this section." Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 7. Since the commission's inception, the apportionment of legislative districts has not been without conflict, causing our Supreme Court to preside over apportionment issues on several occasions. Or, as stated by Justice BRENNAN : The constitution creates a Commission on Legislative Apportionment. Four members are Republicans, four members are Democrats. Every ten years the Commission meets. Every ten years the Commission is unable to agree. [ In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1972, 387 Mich. at 459, 197 N.W.2d 249 ( BRENNAN , J., dissenting).] The very first commission after the adoption of the 1963 Constitution illustrates Justice BRENNAN 's point. In May 1964, our Supreme Court directed the commission to adopt a particular plan when the commissioners could not agree. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1964, 372 Mich. 418, 480, 127 N.W.2d 862 (1964). The United States Supreme Court then issued Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), ruling that the weighted land area/population formula rules violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court indicated that the states should "make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable." Id. at 577, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Our Supreme Court ordered the commission to adopt a different plan in accordance with the ruling in Reynolds ; the commission failed to reach agreement, so the Court then ordered adoption of the Austin-Kleiner plan because it most closely aligned with Reynolds in that the plan's districts contained population as nearly equal as practicable. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1964, 373 Mich. 250, 251-254, 128 N.W.2d 722 (1964). An original petition was then filed challenging the Austin-Kleiner plan; the Court remanded the matter to the commission. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1965 , 376 Mich. 410, 481-482, 137 N.W.2d 495 (1965). Again the commission could not agree, so again our Supreme Court was called upon to make an apportionment decision. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1965-1966, 377 Mich. 396, 140 N.W.2d 436 (1966). The Court ultimately dismissed the challenge, id. at 474, 140 N.W.2d 436 (order of the Court), but not before Justice BLACK suggested that the eight commissioners' names be placed in a jury box, that seven of the names be chosen at random, and that those seven commissioners be directed to apportion the districts. Id. at 413, 140 N.W.2d 436 (memorandum by BLACK , J.). In 1972, after the commission failed to settle on a plan, the apportionment issue again was before our Supreme Court. The Court decided that the Hatcher-Kleiner plan most closely complied with the constitutional requirements but did not address the constitutionality of the requirements themselves. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1972, 387 Mich. at 458, 197 N.W.2d 249. Ten years later, our Supreme Court examined whether the commission's authority continued despite the holding from the United States Supreme Court that the apportionment rules were unconstitutional and, if so, what standards governed. The Court held that Reynolds invalidated the weighted land area/population formula and that the remaining apportionment rules in Article 4 were "inextricably interdependent" and thus were not severable. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1982, 413 Mich. at 116, 321 N.W.2d 565. Likewise, the commission's functions, and the commission itself, were dependent on the rules and could not be severed. Id. The Court added that "[t]he matter should be returned to the political process in a manner which highlights rather than hides the choices the people should make." Id. at 138, 321 N.W.2d 565. Thereafter, rather than relying on a commission that was held to be inextricably tied to the apportionment formula negated by the United States Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court appointed Bernard J. Apol, former Director of Elections, to produce maps to conform with the pertinent apportionment rules. Id. at 142, 321 N.W.2d 565. In 1982, the Court adopted Apol's plan. Id. at 142, 321 N.W.2d 565 (order of the Court entered May 13, 1982). Almost 10 years later, in a statement reflecting upon the 1982 decision, Justice LEVIN indicated that the people were to have adopted new apportionment rules: Another assumption of the compromise [within the 1982 decision] was that responsible persons would come forth and place on the ballot, and the people would adopt, new apportionment rules in time for the 1992 and 1994 elections. Indeed, that was one of the arguments for non-severability-to highlight the need for a new constitutional provision regarding legislative apportionment. The Court's exhortation has not been heeded. [ In re Apportionment of State Legislature , 437 Mich. 1208, 1211, 463 N.W.2d 713 (1990) ( LEVIN , J., concurring) (citation omitted).] In 1990, the Legislature failed to arrive at an apportionment. In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1992, 439 Mich. at 723, 486 N.W.2d 639. Lawsuits were filed and, in 1991, our Supreme Court appointed a panel of special masters to accomplish the reapportionment. Id. at 724, 486 N.W.2d 639. This Court ultimately accepted, for the most part, the plan that the masters proffered. In re Apportionment of the State Legislature-1992, 439 Mich. 251, 483 N.W.2d 52 (1992) (order of the Court). In 1996, the Legislature enacted guidelines for the redistricting of senate and house of representatives districts. See MCL 4.261 et seq . In 1999, the Legislature passed the Congressional Redistricting Act, MCL 3.61 et seq. Thus, after the 1982 and 1992 federal decennial censuses, redistricting has occurred without a commission because the Legislature has decided the districts. With that history in mind, we turn to the VNP Proposal to amend the Constitution to create an independent citizens redistricting commission. E. THE VNP PROPOSAL The VNP Proposal seeks to make changes to 11 sections within three articles of Michigan's 1963 Constitution: Article 4 (legislative branch), Article 5 (executive branch), and Article 6 (judicial branch). The majority of those changes are to Article 4, involving the existing commission on legislative apportionment. The VNP Proposal essentially would accomplish the following: • Create an independent citizens commission regarding legislative apportionment. • Set forth the parameters for the independent commission regarding its structure, operation, and funding. • Eliminate legislative oversight over the independent commission, vest original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court regarding challenges related to the independent commission, and create an exception in the power of the executive branch to the extent limited or abrogated by the independent commission. The VNP Proposal creates an exception to the legislative power of the state senate and the state house of representatives by exempting the new independent citizens redistricting commission from legislative control. The VNP Proposal retains the structure of the senate at 38 members elected from single-member districts, and it retains the structure of the house of representatives at 110 members elected from single-member districts apportioned on the basis of population. However, the VNP Proposal eliminates the existing constitutional provisions in Const. 1963, art. 4, §§ 2 through 5 relating to senate districts and representative areas and their corresponding rules for apportionment. The VNP Proposal's primary change is the replacement of the current commission on legislative apportionment with parameters for a new independent citizens redistricting commission. In place of the eight-member commission, the VNP proposal provides for 13 commissioners; each major political party would have four members and the remaining five members would be self-declared independent voters. The pool of candidates would be drawn from eligible registered Michigan voters. With certain exceptions, candidates would not be eligible to serve if they were current or former lobbyists, partisan elected officials or candidates, or a relative of a disqualified individual. Under the VNP Proposal, commissioners are to be chosen from a pool of applicants, which may include randomly selected voters. Applicants must submit a completed application, must attest under oath that they meet the qualifications, and must identify which of the two major political parties with which they are affiliated, or whether they do not affiliate with either party. The VNP Proposal sets forth specific parameters and timelines for the application procedure, including that legislative leaders may strike from consideration five candidates from any pool. The proposal also designates the funding process and provides for a cause of action should funding not occur. The VNP Proposal includes considerable detail regarding the commission's public hearings and contact with the public. It specifies directives regarding the commissioners' discussion of commission business, and it aims to make records available to the public. The VNP Proposal lists seven criteria for a redistricting plan, giving the most weight to population and geographic contiguity. Additionally, the VNP Proposal describes procedures for the commission's adoption of a new redistricting plan and the publication of its related data. Under the VNP Proposal, the Michigan Supreme Court has original jurisdiction regarding the independent citizens redistricting commission to do the following: (1) direct the Secretary or commission to perform their respective duties, (2) review a challenge to any plan that the commission adopts, and (3) remand a plan to the commission for further action if the plan does not comply with the requirements of the Michigan Constitution, the United States Constitution or superseding federal law. Only the commission, and no other body, can promulgate and adopt a redistricting plan. In Article 5, involving the executive branch, the VNP Proposal continues vesting the power in the executive branch but excepts the independent citizens redistricting commission, noting that the commission's powers are exclusively reserved for the commission. The VNP Proposal alters § 4, involving the establishment of executive branch commissions or agencies, by adding the language "except to the extent limited or abrogated by Article V, section 2 or Article IV, section 6," which are the sections involving the independent citizens redistricting commission. With regard to Article 6, concerning the judicial branch, the VNP Proposal leaves intact the power of the branch, except to the extent limited or abrogated by the independent citizens redistricting commission. II. ANALYSIS [I]n the very rare case ... when an 'initiative petition does not meet the constitutional prerequisites for acceptance,' a court may find it necessary to intervene in the initiative process. But because the judicial branch should rarely interfere with the legislative process, such cases should be, and are, rare .... [ Coalition for a Safer Detroit v. Detroit City Clerk , 295 Mich. App. 362, 372, 820 N.W.2d 208 (2012) (citations omitted).] This case is not one of the rare cases in which this Court should intervene. The people of Michigan long have reserved the right to amend their Constitution. City of Jackson v. Comm'r of Revenue , 316 Mich. 694, 710, 26 N.W.2d 569 (1947) ; Scott v. Secretary of State , 202 Mich. 629, 643, 168 N.W. 709 (1918). To do so, they may bring an initiative petition before the voters by submitting a proposal to be placed on the ballot. Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 ; Wolverine Golf Club v. Secretary of State , 24 Mich. App. 711, 716, 180 N.W.2d 820 (1970) (opinion by LESINSKI , C.J.), aff'd 384 Mich. 461, 185 N.W.2d 392 (1971). Any person or organization opposing the submission of an initiative petition may bring an action for mandamus to preclude the placement of that petition onto the ballot. See Hamilton v. Secretary of State , 212 Mich. 31, 33, 179 N.W. 553 (1920) ; Coalition for a Safer Detroit , 295 Mich. App. at 371, 820 N.W.2d 208. In an exceptional case, a court may deem it necessary to intervene in the initiative process. See Detroit v. Detroit City Clerk , 98 Mich. App. 136, 139, 296 N.W.2d 207 (1980). A. MANDAMUS This Court has jurisdiction over this original action pursuant to MCL 600.4401(1) ("An action for mandamus against a state officer shall be commenced in the court of appeals ...."). See also MCR 7.203(C)(2). The Secretary and the Board are "state officers" for mandamus purposes. See Comm. for Constitutional Reform v. Secretary of State, 425 Mich. 336, 338 n. 2, 339, 389 N.W.2d 430 (1986). Further, the Michigan Election Law provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of the Board may seek relief in the form of mandamus. MCL 168.479. Accordingly, mandamus is the proper remedy for a party seeking to compel election officials to carry out their duties. See, e.g., Wolverine Golf Club , 24 Mich. App. at 716, 180 N.W.2d 820 (opinion by LESINSKI , C.J.). This Court has the authority to issue a prerogative writ of mandamus, but mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. LeRoux v. Secretary of State , 465 Mich. 594, 606, 640 N.W.2d 849 (2002) ; O'Connell v. Dir. of Elections, 316 Mich. App. 91, 100, 891 N.W.2d 240 (2016). Whether a writ issues is within the discretion of the court. See Carter v. Ann Arbor City Attorney, 271 Mich. App. 425, 438, 722 N.W.2d 243 (2006). In a mandamus action, this Court considers whether the defendant has a clear legal duty and whether the plaintiff has a clear right to performance of that duty. Attorney General v. Bd. of State Canvassers , 318 Mich. App. 242, 248, 896 N.W.2d 485 (2016). Specifically, the plaintiff has the burden to show: (1) a clear legal right to the act sought to be compelled; (2) a clear legal duty by the defendant to perform the act; (3) that the act is ministerial, leaving nothing to the judgment or discretion of the defendant; and (4) that no other adequate remedy exists. [ Casco Twp. v. Secretary of State , 472 Mich. 566, 621, 701 N.W.2d 102 (2005) ( YOUNG , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).] A clear legal right has been defined as a right " 'clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.' " Univ. Med. Affiliates, P.C. v. Wayne Co. Executive , 142 Mich. App. 135, 143, 369 N.W.2d 277 (1985) (citation omitted). The plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate an entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus. Herp v. Lansing City Clerk, 164 Mich. App. 150, 161, 416 N.W.2d 367 (1987). Plaintiffs here include a duly registered ballot-question committee (CPMC), a former paid employee of a political candidate (Spyke), and the parent of a person otherwise disqualified from serving on the proposed commission (Daunt). Spyke and Daunt contend that they will be aggrieved by the VNP Proposal because they would be precluded from serving on the redistricting commission pursuant to the revised criteria. They assert a clear legal right to have the Secretary and the Board reject the petition and not place it on the ballot. The Secretary has a clear legal duty to "[p]repare the form of ballot for any proposed amendment to the constitution or proposal under the initiative or referendum provision of the constitution to be submitted to the voters of this state." MCL 168.31(1)(f). The Secretary argues, however, that her only remaining duty is to certify the ballot to the counties after Board certification. The Board has a clear legal duty regarding ballot questions because it examines petitions to ascertain that they have sufficient signatures. MCL 168.476. The Board also makes an official declaration regarding the sufficiency of the petition. MCL 168.477(1). The Board's duty is to certify the proposal after determining whether the form of the petition substantially complies with statutory requirements and whether the proposal has sufficient signatures in support. See Protecting Mich. Taxpayers v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 324 Mich. App. 240, 248 n. 3, 919 N.W.2d 677 (2018). In essence, the Board ascertains whether sufficient valid signatures support the petition and whether the petition is in proper form. "A ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment." Hillsdale County Senior Servs., Inc. v. Hillsdale County , 494 Mich. 46, 58 n. 11, 832 N.W.2d 728 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has settled the question of whether the Board's and the Secretary's clear legal duties are ministerial where, as here, the parties dispute whether an initiative petition proposal is an "amendment" to, or a "general revision" of, the Constitution. In Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, 280 Mich. App. 273, 286-287, 761 N.W.2d 210 (2008), aff'd in result only 482 Mich. 960, 755 N.W.2d 157 (2008), the panel explained that, because the determinations of whether a proposal is a general revision or an amendment to the Constitution and whether a proposal serves more than a single purpose require judgment, they are not ministerial tasks to be performed by the Secretary or the Board. However, this Court is obliged to make the threshold determination of whether an initiative petition meets the constitutional prerequisites for acceptance on the ballot. Id. at 283, 291, 761 N.W.2d 210. As a result of this Court's decision, the Board and the Secretary would have a clear legal duty regarding the initiative petition. At that point, the act of the Board and the Secretary regarding the petition would be ministerial in nature, not requiring the exercise of judgment or discretion. Id. at 291-292, 761 N.W.2d 210. Consequently, as we have determined that the VNP Proposal meets the constitutional prerequisites, the Secretary's and the Board's actions in placing it on the ballot will be ministerial. It does not appear to be disputed that the parties have no other adequate remedy available in law or equity. Historically, challenges regarding a petition's substance have been viewed as premature if brought before the initiative legislation comes into effect, see Hamilton , 212 Mich. at 34, 179 N.W. 553, but challenges regarding the legality or sufficiency of the form of the petitions themselves may be entertained earlier, Leininger v. Secretary of State , 316 Mich. 644, 26 N.W.2d 348 (1947). Questions about whether a petition meets the constitutional prerequisites for acceptance are ripe for review. Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Secretary of State, 463 Mich. 1009, 625 N.W.2d 377 (2001). Because the instant challenge involves whether the VNP Proposal is eligible to be on the ballot, the issue is ripe for review. See also Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 280 Mich. App. at 283, 288, 761 N.W.2d 210. B. AMENDMENT VERSUS GENERAL REVISION Article 12, § 2 of Michigan's 1963 Constitution addresses the amendment of the Constitution via initiative petition. It sets forth the requirements for such a petition to be placed on the ballot and provides: Amendments may be proposed to this constitution by petition of the registered electors of this state. Every petition shall include the full text of the proposed amendment, and be signed by registered electors of the state equal in number to at least 10 percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected. Such petitions shall be filed with the person authorized by law to receive the same at least 120 days before the election at which the proposed amendment is to be voted upon. Any such petition shall be in the form, and shall be signed and circulated in such manner, as prescribed by law. The person authorized by law to receive such petition shall upon its receipt determine, as provided by law, the validity and sufficiency of the signatures on the petition, and make an official announcement thereof at least 60 days prior to the election at which the proposed amendment is to be voted upon. Any amendment proposed by such petition shall be submitted, not less than 120 days after it was filed, to the electors at the next general election. Such proposed amendment, existing provisions of the constitution which would be altered or abrogated thereby, and the question as it shall appear on the ballot shall be published in full as provided by law. Copies of such publication shall be posted in each polling place and furnished to news media as provided by law. The ballot to be used in such election shall contain a statement of the purpose of the proposed amendment, expressed in not more than 100 words, exclusive of caption. Such statement of purpose and caption shall be prepared by the person authorized by law, and shall consist of a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment in such language as shall create no prejudice for or against the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question, it shall become part of the constitution, and shall abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the end of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was approved. If two or more amendments approved by the electors at the same election conflict, that amendment receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.[ ] The above language does not impose, or even suggest, limitation on the scope of a voter initiative proposing a constitutional amendment. In contrast, Article 12, § 3 of the 1963 Constitution, involves general revision of the Constitution via a constitutional convention, and it provides: At the general election to be held in the year 1978, and in each 16th year thereafter and at such times as may be provided by law, the question of a general revision of the constitution shall be submitted to the electors of the state. If a majority of the electors voting on the question decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, at an election to be held not later than six months after the proposal was certified as approved, the electors of each representative district as then organized shall elect one delegate and the electors of each senatorial district as then organized shall elect one delegate at a partisan election. The delegates so elected shall convene at the seat of government on the first Tuesday in October next succeeding such election or at an earlier date if provided by law. The convention shall choose its own officers, determine the rules of its proceedings and judge the qualifications, elections and returns of its members. To fill a vacancy in the office of any delegate, the governor shall appoint a qualified resident of the same district who shall be a member of the same party as the delegate vacating the office. The convention shall have power to appoint such officers, employees and assistants as it deems necessary and to fix their compensation; to provide for the printing and distribution of its documents, journals and proceedings; to explain and disseminate information about the proposed constitution and to complete the business of the convention in an orderly manner. Each delegate shall receive for his services compensation provided by law. No proposed constitution or amendment adopted by such convention shall be submitted to the electors for approval as hereinafter provided unless by the assent of a majority of all the delegates elected to and serving in the convention, with the names and vote of those voting entered in the journal. Any proposed constitution or amendments adopted by such convention shall be submitted to the qualified electors in the manner and at the time provided by such convention not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention. Upon the approval of such constitution or amendments by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon the constitution or amendments shall take effect as provided by the convention.[ ] Our courts long have recognized that an amendment is not the same as a general revision and have attempted to define the differences between them where the constitutional provisions themselves do not define the terms. Eight decades ago, in 1932, our Supreme Court discussed the fundamental distinctions between revision and amendment in Kelly v. Laing , 259 Mich. 212, 242 N.W. 891 (1932). The Court held that an initiative petition may encompass only one proposed amendment but may involve more than one section, provided that "all sections are germane to the purpose of the amendment." Id. at 216, 242 N.W. 891. Another question raised in Laing was whether the changes at issue could be raised by amendment, or whether they constituted a general revision. The Court described the differences between the two concepts: 'Revision' and 'amendment' have the common characteristics of working changes in the charter and are sometimes used inexactly, but there is an essential difference between them. Revision implies a re-examination of the whole law and a redraft without obligation to maintain the form, scheme, or structure of the old. As applied to fundamental law, such as a constitution or charter, it suggests a convention to examine the whole subject and to prepare and submit a new instrument, whether the desired changes from the old be few or many. Amendment implies continuance of the general plan and purport of the law, with corrections to accomplish its purpose. Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a correction of detail. [ Id. at 217, 242 N.W. 891.] Our Supreme Court added: An amendment is usually proposed by persons interested in a specific change and little concerned with its effect upon other provisions of the charter. [In contrast, the] machinery of revision is in line with our historical and traditional system of changing fundamental law by convention, which experience has shown best adapted to make necessary readjustments. [ Id . at 221-222, 242 N.W. 891.] One year after Laing , our Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether a proposal was a revision or an amendment in City of Pontiac Sch. Dist. v. City of Pontiac, 262 Mich. 338, 344, 247 N.W. 474 (1933). The plaintiff argued that the proposal to limit property taxes that had been approved in the general election was so far-reaching as to invalidate the Constitution and thus was a general revision. Id. at 345. The Court disagreed, concluding that it was an amendment because the proposal did not "interfere with" or "modify" the operation of governmental agencies in such a way to render it a general revision. Id. at 345, 247 N.W. 474. In 2008, building on the precepts from Laing and Pontiac , this Court discussed the difference between an amendment of the Constitution and a general revision of the Constitution in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 280 Mich. App. 273, 761 N.W.2d 210. Regarding a complaint for mandamus filed by the plaintiff CPMC concerning an initiative petition from the intervening defendant Reform Michigan Government Now (RMGN) for the general-election ballot, this Court analyzed the constitutional provisions governing an amendment, as compared to a general revision. The Court held that it was "absolutely clear" that the procedures for constitutional amendment could not achieve a general revision of the constitution. Id. at 277, 761 N.W.2d 210. While the constitution provides for amendment under the initiative petition procedure-that is, through Article 12, § 2-a general revision of the constitution can occur only by the constitutional convention procedure in Article 12, § 3. Id. This Court decided that the courts also must consider "the degree to which the proposal interferes with, or modifies, the operation of government." Id. at 298, 761 N.W.2d 210. The more the proposal modifies or interferes with the operation of government, the more likely it is to be a general revision. Id. The Court held: [T]o determine whether a proposal effects a "general revision" of the constitution, and is therefore not subject to the initiative process established for amending the constitution, the Court must consider both the quantitative nature and the qualitative nature of the proposed changes. More specifically, the determination depends on not only the number of proposed changes or whether a wholly new constitution is being offered, but on the scope of the proposed changes and the degree to which those changes would interfere with, or modify, the operation of government. [ Id . at 305, 761 N.W.2d 210 (emphasis added).] The RMGN proposal in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution would have made myriad changes to the 1963 Michigan Constitution related to a far-ranging field of topics, from reducing the number of senators, representatives, and appellate justices and judges, to granting any citizen standing for certain environmental lawsuits, to limiting lobbying activities; the opinion listed 29 distinct changes to a multitude of constitutional provisions. Id. at 279-281, 761 N.W.2d 210. The proposal also would have created a new commission with authority over legislative districting, established rules for creating legislative districting plans, and eliminated judicial review over districting plans. Id. at 280, 761 N.W.2d 210. In total, it would have altered over two dozen sections of four articles within the constitution and added four additional sections. Id. at 305, 761 N.W.2d 210. This Court decided that the RMGN proposal did not "even approach the 'field of application' for the amendment procedure." Id. (citation omitted). The Court observed that the proposal would have modified "the fundamental governmental structure" under the Constitution. Id. at 306, 761 N.W.2d 210. Moreover, it would have done so in an abrupt manner, within less than six months of the November 2008 election. Id. at 306-307, 761 N.W.2d 210. The Court concluded that "[t]he substantial entirety of the petition alters the core, fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, amounting to a wholesale revision, not a mere amendment." Id. at 307, 761 N.W.2d 210. Our Supreme Court affirmed in result only and did not adopt this Court's reasoning. The RMGN proposal would have reorganized the operation of the whole state government. The same is simply not true in this case. Here, rather than proposing "sprawling compilations of changes" as characterized by plaintiffs, the VNP Proposal has a singular focus: to create an independent citizens redistricting commission with exclusive authority to establish redistricting plans for legislative districts. This case therefore is distinguishable from the much broader RMGN proposal in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution. The question then becomes whether under the legal framework of Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution , the VNP Proposal falls within the description of an amendment. Intervening defendants argue that this Court should limit Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution to its own "highly unusual" facts, particularly because the Court set forth a qualitative/quantitative standard borrowed primarily from the decisions of other state courts. Nevertheless, we are bound by Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution as a published decision issued after 1990. MCR 7.215(J)(1). But even in following Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution , we keep in mind the Court's clarification at the outset that its decision was not "to prevent the citizens from voting on a proposal simply because that proposal is allegedly too complex or confusing." Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution , 280 Mich. App. at 276. Four years after Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution was decided, our Court considered in Protect Our Jobs v. Bd. of State Canvassers , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 27, 2012 (Docket No. 311828), 2012 WL 3660260, aff'd on other grounds 492 Mich. 763, 822 N.W.2d 534 (2012), whether a ballot initiative was an amendment or a general revision. The proposal would have added a new Article 1, § 28 to provide the right to bargain collectively, and a new paragraph to Article 11, § 5 to protect the collective bargaining right for classified civil service employees. The plaintiff, CPMC challenged the proposal as, among other things, being a general revision rather than an amendment. Id. at 1-2. This Court relied on the qualitative and quantitative test in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution to analyze the issue. The Court acknowledged that the proposal might have an effect on provisions and statutes, but it also observed that the proposal was confined to a single subject matter and that it directly added only one section to the Constitution and changed one other. This Court resolved that the initiative proposal was "far more akin to a correction of detail than a fundamental change, when viewed in the proper context of the constitution as a whole." Id. at 2-3. This case falls somewhere between Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution and Protect Our Jobs. The VNP Proposal is nowhere near as diverse and titanic as the RMGN proposal, but nor is it as concise as the proposal in Protect Our Jobs. The VNP Proposal maintains the structure of a commission for legislative districting. It continues the general plans for a commission, but it changes the details of how the commission members are chosen and the specifics regarding the commission's operation. It does not seek to change fundamental law-senate and house members still will represent, and be chosen by, voters in legislative districts, and the number of senators and representatives will not change, unlike the RMGN proposal. The VNP proposal was put forward by a ballot-question committee intent on a specific change: to modify the commission membership to provide for an independent commission to draw legislative lines and to restrict membership on the commission to those who essentially are not partisan elected officials or lobbyists. In short, the VNP Proposal is intended to remedy perceived abuses from partisan gerrymandering of districts. This proposal does not interfere with or modify the operation of the government in such a way as to render it a general revision. The proposal seeks only to modify the sections of the Constitution that involve a single, narrow focus-the independent citizens redistricting commission. We acknowledge that the Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution Court commented on a portion of the RMGN proposal dealing with the proposed changes to the districting commission: As just one example, the proposal strips the Legislature of any authority to propose and enact a legislative redistricting plan. It abrogates a portion of the judicial power by giving a new executive branch redistricting commission authority to conduct legislative redistricting. It then removes from the judicial branch the power of judicial review over the new commission's actions. We agree with the Attorney General that the proposal affects the "foundation power" of government by "wresting from" the legislative branch and the judicial branch any authority over redistricting and consolidating that power in the executive branch, albeit in a new independent agency with plenary authority over redistricting. [ Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 280 Mich. App. at 306, 761 N.W.2d 210.] The instant proposal does not wrest complete power from the legislative branch and the judicial branch, given that the Legislature retains the power to veto potential commission members and the judiciary retains control over challenges related to the commission. The proposal does shift the duty of redistricting from the Legislature to the independent commission, a commission that is similar in structure to the one described in our existing Constitution. The proposal does not otherwise reduce general legislative power. With regard to our Supreme Court, the proposal provides for Supreme Court oversight in a manner similar to the existing constitutional provisions, but it does preclude the Supreme Court from ordering the adoption of a plan other than that arrived at by the independent commission. The power of the executive branch would not be materially changed, although the commission's functions would not be subject to control by the governor. Plaintiffs seek to parse out these changes into 14 enumerated points, but those points merely seek to shift the Court's focus from the forest to the trees. This issue should not be made more complicated than necessary. Further, the Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution Court did not consider the proposed change in isolation but as one of the 29 items in the vast proposal. Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution did not hold that an initiative could not succeed on any one of those 29 subjects; rather, it held that because the petition encompassed all 29 changes, it could not be considered a mere amendment. We do not construe the proposed amendment here as so far-reaching in the framework of the Constitution so as to be a reexamination of the whole section. Because our existing Constitution has provided for a commission to draw the districting lines, it follows that an independent commission to do the same would not be so violative of the Constitution so as to preclude this proposal from placement on the ballot. Moreover, the VNP Proposal is not wholly new. It does not create an entirely new commission regarding redistricting; the commission already exists in our Constitution, although admittedly it has not been active for decades given Reynolds . The VNP Proposal merely changes the method by which the commissioners will be chosen going forward and adds additional members who are avowed independent voters. It does not wholly impede legislative power because legislative leaders retain the power to veto proposed commission members. Undeniably, it introduces new concepts, but it does so in a finite manner. The body of Michigan caselaw does not hold that the addition of new concepts within the framework of our existing Constitution precludes an initiative petition. Plaintiffs maintain that the VNP Proposal abandons core redistricting criteria that have existed since the state's founding. Our Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he basic building blocks of the apportionment rules are the counties." In re Apportionment of State Legislature-1982 , 413 Mich. at 125, 321 N.W.2d 565. The public-policy issues raised by the proposal's nonadherence to the county framework are not the province of this branch of government at this stage of the initiative petition process. We do not believe that the choosing of geographical legislative districts for representation is truly a "fundamental function" or an "operation of government." With regard to the quantitative portion of the Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution holding, the VNP Proposal changes 11 sections within three articles of the Constitution. The essential changes can be quickly enumerated, yet plaintiffs repeatedly point out that the proposal would add 4,834 words to the Constitution and even included a bar graph in their reply brief. VNP should not be penalized for including specific details within its proposal, particularly when many of the proposed additions are merely operational details. Plaintiffs also argue that the proposal is multifarious and goes beyond the scope of a single amendment. The VNP Proposal is undeniably detailed, but it is targeted to achieve a single, specific purpose. To the extent that plaintiffs urge this Court to accept that the meaning of an amendment includes a "short" correction to the existing constitution, we have found no such limitation in legal authority. Further, plaintiffs maintain that the VNP Proposal should have a lengthy explanation of its changes, pointing out that the information disseminated after the 1961-1962 constitutional convention included a 109-page pamphlet. Here, such a lengthy pamphlet would not be necessary to describe the changes proposed by the VNP Proposal, particularly when the most recent constitutional convention resulted in myriad innovative changes to the existing Constitution, including the mandate of equal-rights protections and the establishment of the Civil Rights Commission. Plaintiffs also argue that the multifarious nature of the VNP Proposal is illustrated by the fact that it cannot be easily summarized in 100 words. This argument is premature because the Director of Elections has not yet fulfilled her duty under MCL 168.32(2) to draft the 100-word summary. Plaintiffs add that some of the VNP Proposal requirements would be impossible to comply with, focusing on the requirement that the Secretary select commissioners in a manner that mirrors the demographic makeup of the state. That argument is irrelevant to the threshold question before this Court regarding whether the proposal is eligible to be placed on the ballot, but instead pertains to the merits of the proposal, an issue that is not before this Court. In sum, we opine that the VNP Proposal is closer to the proposal in Protect Our Jobs than to the proposal in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution . We hold that the VNP Proposal, although undeniably introducing new concepts, does not modify or interfere with the fundamental operation of government or create a wholly new constitutional provision so as to make it a general revision to the Constitution rather than an amendment. C. REPUBLICATION Proposals to amend the Constitution must publish those sections that the proposal will alter or abrogate. Article 12, § 2 of the 1963 Constitution governs amendment of the Constitution by petition and vote, and it provides, in pertinent part: "Such proposed amendment, existing provisions of the constitution which would be altered or abrogated thereby, and the question as it shall appear on the ballot shall be published in full as provided by law." The provision's aim is to advise the voter of the amendment's purpose and to identify which provision(s) of the constitutional law it changes or replaces. Massey v. Secretary of State, 457 Mich. 410, 417, 579 N.W.2d 862 (1998). Care must be taken, however, not to confuse the voter by publishing myriad constitutional provisions "which were or might be directly or only remotely, and possibly only contingently, affected by the proposed amendment." City of Pontiac Sch. Dist. , 262 Mich. at 344, 247 N.W. 474. The Legislature has enacted the publishing requirements for petitions. MCL 168.482(3) provides, in relevant part: "If the proposal would alter or abrogate an existing provision of the constitution, the petition shall so state and the provisions to be altered or abrogated shall be inserted, preceded by the words: 'Provisions of existing constitution altered or abrogated by the proposal if adopted.' " (Formatting altered.) Our Supreme Court has held that an initiative petition must comply with the mandatory statutory provisions that set forth requirements regarding a petition's form. Stand Up for Democracy v. Secretary of State , 492 Mich. 588, 594, 601-602, 822 N.W.2d 159 (2012) (opinion by MARY BETH KELLY , J.); id. at 620, 822 N.W.2d 159 (opinion by YOUNG , C.J.); id. at 637, 640-641, 822 N.W.2d 159 (opinion by MARKMAN , J.). Given that MCL 168.482(3) contains the mandatory term "shall," petitions must comply with the republication requirement. Protect Our Jobs, 492 Mich. at 778, 822 N.W.2d 534. Provisions of the Constitution must be republished on petitions when "a proposed constitutional provision amends or replaces ('alters or abrogates') a specific provision of the Constitution, that such provision should be published along with the proposed amendment ...." City of Pontiac Sch. Dist. , 262 Mich. at 344, 247 N.W. 474. Our Supreme Court has explained that an alteration or abrogation ensues "if the proposed amendment would add to, delete from, or change the existing wording of the provision, or would render it wholly inoperative." Ferency v. Secretary of State , 409 Mich. 569, 597, 297 N.W.2d 544 (1980). The fact that a proposed amendment will affect a provision does not inevitably mean the provision is "altered or abrogated." Id. at 596-597, 297 N.W.2d 544. In 2012, our Supreme Court observed that the republication requirement continued to be subject to debate, which inspired the Court to provide additional clarity. It reasoned that to establish that a proposed amendment "alters" an existing provision such that republication is required, an amendment must: (1) add words to an existing provision, (2) delete words from an existing provision, or (3) change the wording in an existing provision. Protect Our Jobs , 492 Mich. at 782, 822 N.W.2d 534. Consequently, the Court concluded that a new constitutional provision does not "alter" an existing provision when the new provision leaves completely intact the text of all existing provisions. Id. With regard to whether an amendment "abrogates" an existing provision, the Protect Our Jobs Court stated that "the 'abrogation' standard makes clear that republication is only triggered by a change that would essentially eviscerate an existing provision." Id . The Court went on to state: Our caselaw establishes that an existing provision of the Constitution is abrogated and, thus, must be republished if it is rendered 'wholly inoperative.' An existing constitutional provision is rendered wholly inoperative if the proposed amendment would make the existing provision a nullity or if it would be impossible for the amendment to be harmonized with the existing provision when the two provisions are considered together. That is, if two provisions are incompatible with each other, the new provision would abrogate the existing provision and, thus, the existing provision would have to be republished. An existing provision is not rendered wholly inoperative if it can be reasonably construed in a manner consistent with the new provision, i.e., the two provisions are not incompatible. Determining whether the existing and new provisions can be harmonized requires careful consideration of the actual language used in both the existing provision and the proposed amendment. An existing provision that uses nonexclusive or nonabsolute language is less likely to be rendered inoperative simply because a proposed new provision introduces in some manner a change to the existing provision. Rather, when the existing provision would likely continue to exist as it did preamendment, although it might be affected or supplemented in some fashion by the proposed amendment, no abrogation occurs. On the other hand, a proposed amendment more likely renders an existing provision inoperative if the existing provision creates a mandatory requirement or uses language providing an exclusive power or authority because any change to such a provision would tend to negate the specifically conferred constitutional requirement. [ Id. at 782-783, 822 N.W.2d 534 (citations omitted).] The abrogation inquiry requires examination of the entire existing constitutional provision, as well as the provision's "discrete subparts, sentences, clauses, or even, potentially, single words." Id. at 784, 822 N.W.2d 534. The petition must republish the entire provision if the proposed amendment "renders wholly inoperative" any of the existing provision's components. Id. The Court summarized its holding regarding republication as follows: 1. When the existing language of a constitutional provision would be altered or abrogated by the proposed amendment, republication of the existing provision is required. 2. The language of the amendment itself, rather than how proponents or opponents of the amendment characterize its meaning, controls whether an existing provision would be altered or abrogated by the proposed amendment. 3. When the existing language of a constitutional provision would not be altered, but the proposed amendment would render the entire provision or some discrete component of the provision wholly inoperative, abrogation would occur and republication of the existing language is required. 4. When the existing language would not be altered or abrogated, but the proposed amendment would only have an effect on the existing language, and the new and existing provisions can be harmoniously construed, republication of the existing provision is not required. 5. When the existing language would not be altered or abrogated, but the proposed amendment would only have an effect on the existing language, thereby requiring that the new and existing provisions be interpreted together, republication of the existing provision is not required. [ Id. at 791-792, 822 N.W.2d 534.] Additionally, the Protect Our Jobs Court cited Ferency 's caution against adopting an overly expansive definition of the terms "alter or abrogate" so as not to "chill" the people's ability to amend the Constitution. It added that petition circulators should not be required to append the entire Constitution to their petition. Id. at 780, 822 N.W.2d 534, citing Ferency , 409 Mich. at 597-598, 297 N.W.2d 544. The courts and the Legislature may not impose "undue burdens" on the people's right to amend. Wolverine Golf Club v. Secretary of State , 384 Mich. 461, 466, 185 N.W.2d 392 (1971) (citation omitted). The VNP Proposal does not alter the challenged sections at issue because it does not add words, delete words, or change words in the existing sections. Consequently, the analysis that follows examines only whether the VNP Proposal abrogates existing constitutional provisions. 1. CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 provides: The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law; appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals except as otherwise provided by law; power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; supervisory and general control over inferior courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions in accordance with rules of the supreme court; and jurisdiction of other cases and matters as provided by rules of the supreme court. In the VNP Proposal, Article 4, § 6(19) provides, in relevant part: The Supreme Court, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, shall direct the Secretary of State or the Commission to perform their respective duties, may review a challenge to any plan adopted by the commission, and shall remand a plan to the commission for further action if the plan fails to comply with the requirements of this Constitution, the Constitution of the United States or superseding federal law. Plaintiffs contend that the proposal creates original jurisdiction over redistricting matters in the Supreme Court instead of in the circuit court and that Article 4, § 6(19) abrogates Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 because it would divest the circuit court of its exclusive original jurisdiction. Notably, our current Constitution already gives the Supreme Court authority over redistricting commission matters. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶¶ 7-8. Also, the substance of Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 would not be changed by the VNP Proposal. Article 6, § 13 does not have exclusive language. Rather, it provides the circuit court with jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law , which illustrates that the framers intended that the circuit courts' jurisdiction would have exceptions. Article 6, § 13 therefore does not suggest that such jurisdiction cannot be limited or affected by other constitutional provisions. Indeed, our Courts recognize that exceptions to circuit court jurisdiction exist. Plaintiffs cite Bowie v. Arder, 441 Mich. 23, 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992), to support their argument that the VNP Proposal abrogates Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 because the change would be not "by law," but by constitutional decree. The Bowie Court recognized however that circuit court jurisdiction may be subject to an exception when jurisdiction is "given exclusively to another court by constitution or statute ...." Id. at 38, 490 N.W.2d 568. See MCL 600.605. See also Prime Time Int'l Distrib., Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 322 Mich. App. 46, 52, 910 N.W.2d 683 (2017) (observing that the circuit courts are presumed to have jurisdiction unless expressly prohibited or unless jurisdiction is given to another court by Constitution or statute). Further, the VNP Proposal can be harmonized with Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 because the only effect is that the circuit court will not have jurisdiction over the commission. In all other respects, Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 remains unaffected. The existing constitutional provision has not been eviscerated. No abrogation therefore would occur because the existing provision would be neither negated nor rendered wholly inoperative. 2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH Const. 1963, art. 1, § 5 provides as follows: Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. The VNP Proposal provides in Article 4, § 6(11), in relevant part: The Commission, its members, staff, attorneys, and consultants shall not discuss redistricting matters with members of the public outside of an open meeting of the Commission, except that a commissioner may communicate about redistricting matters with members of the public to gain information relevant to the performance of his or her duties if such communication occurs (a) in writing or (b) at a previously publicly noticed forum or town hall open to the general public. Plaintiffs suggest that the VNP Proposal would restrict the free speech of commissioners. They argue that the restrictions on the commissioners' liberty of speech would extend to matters beyond the commission, and they suggest that the restrictions are neither in the public interest nor in keeping with the rights of the public officials. We reject these policy arguments because the issue before this Court is the alleged abrogation of existing constitutional provisions, not whether the VNP Proposal promotes sound social policy. We also point out that the speech of government employees may be subject to certain restrictions given the public employees' potential to express views that are contrary to governmental policies; a citizen entering government service "must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom [of speech]." Shirvell v. Dep't of Attorney General, 308 Mich. App. 702, 733, 866 N.W.2d 478 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Abrogation would not occur because Const. 1963, art. 1, § 5 would remain fully operative. Article 4, § 6(11) of the VNP Proposal does not restrict all speech but does place limits on matters related to official commission work. Commissioners would retain their right to speak freely, but when speaking on official business, they would be restricted to doing so in an open meeting, in writing, or at a publicly noticed public forum. That constraint is accounted for by the condition in Const. 1963, art. 1, § 5 that every person "is responsible for the abuse of such right [to free speech.]" Accordingly, the right to free speech is not wholly unrestricted. Additionally, Const. 1963, art. 1, § 5 is not rendered a nullity because it has relevancy well beyond the scope of matters related to the commission. The VNP Proposal does not replace Const. 1963, art. 1, § 5, nor does it render that section wholly inoperative. Plaintiffs have taken a very broad view of the Protect Our Jobs standard, arguing that "any abrogation," even a slight one, requires republication. A restriction, however, is not an abrogation-and Protect Our Jobs holds that the provisions must be impossible to harmonize. Protect Our Jobs, 492 Mich. at 784, 822 N.W.2d 534. Republication is not required when the new proposed amendment would have only an effect on existing language. Id. at 792, 822 N.W.2d 534. 3. APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE The Appropriations Clause, Const. 1963, art. 9, § 17, provides: No money shall be paid out of the state treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. The VNP Proposal sets forth Article 4, § 6(5), which provides, in relevant part: Each commissioner shall receive compensation at least equal to 25 percent of the governor's salary. The State of Michigan shall indemnify commissioners for costs incurred if the Legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds to cover such costs. Plaintiffs contend that the existing provision is incompatible with the proposed requirement that the state compensate and indemnify commissioners for costs incurred even absent an appropriation. They note that the proposal mandates indemnification of commissioners even if the Legislature does not approve sufficient funding. In examining the Appropriations Clause from the 1908 Constitution, our Supreme Court recognized that "the weight of authority" held that the clause did not restrict appropriations to enactments from the Legislature but also allows for "a constitutional appropriation apart from any action by the legislature." Civil Serv. Comm. v. Auditor General , 302 Mich. 673, 679, 5 N.W.2d 536 (1942). But even so, the VNP Proposal accounts for the legislative appropriation because it provides for a cause of action if the Legislature does not appropriate the funds-thereby indicating that the money is to come from the Legislature via an appropriation. Plaintiffs' claims that the commission will have an unlimited budget and that the state's assets will be subject to the "unrestricted whims" of the commissioners are irrelevant because they do not pertain to the question of whether the VNP Proposal abrogates the existing Appropriations Clause by setting forth a particular minimum budget for the commission and providing for a cause of action if the Legislature fails to appropriate the funds. The proposed Article 4, § 6(5) does not require a payment from the state treasury absent an appropriation, but merely provides for a constitutional cause of action should the Legislature fail to fulfill its obligation to fund the commission. To the extent that plaintiffs argue that the courts cannot order the Legislature to make an appropriation, that question need not be settled at this time. The only question in this case is whether the VNP Proposal replaces, renders wholly inoperative, or eviscerates the Appropriations Clause. It does not. 4. OATH OF OFFICE Const. 1963, art. 11, § 1 concerns the oath taken by public officers and provides as follows: All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of .......... according to the best of my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. The VNP Proposal sets forth Article 4, § 6(2), which provides, in relevant part: Commissioners shall be selected through the following process: (A) The Secretary of State shall do all of the following: * * * (III) Require applicants to attest under oath that they meet the qualifications set forth in this section; and either that they affiliate with one of the two political parties with the largest representation in the Legislature (hereinafter, "major parties"), and if so, identify the party with which they affiliate, or that they do not affiliate with either of the major parties. Plaintiffs maintain that the existing provision requires only one oath, and the new provision would render the existing provision a nullity. The affirmation in proposed Article 4, § 6(2)(A)(III) is not an oath of office, but is merely an affirmation that the applicant satisfies the commissioner qualifications, which are enumerated in a separate section, § 6 (1). This position finds support in Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227, 396 Mich. 465, 510, 242 N.W.2d 3 (1976), wherein our Supreme Court ruled that an oath regarding financial disclosure was akin to the affidavits required to file a nominating petition under MCL 168.558. In contrast, the oath in Harrington v. Secretary of State, 211 Mich. 395, 395-396, 179 N.W. 283 (1920), cited by plaintiffs, required the candidate to swear in part that he would "support the principles of [the] political party of which he is a member if nominated and elected[.]" That loyalty oath was to cover the entire term of office, even after election, and for so long as he or she remained in office. In ruling that the oath was unconstitutional, the Court cited with approval the Attorney General's reasoning that the candidate would be bound by an oath other than the constitutional oath of office. Id. at 397, 179 N.W. 283. The same is not true here because the oath required by the VNP Proposal relates only to the information on the application and does not bind a candidate once he or she becomes a commissioner. Thus, the existing oath-of-office provision is unaffected by the affirmation. The proposal does not make the existing constitutional provision a nullity. 5. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES In a footnote, plaintiffs add a final example, stating that VNP Proposal should have republished Const. 1963, art. 11, § 5, regarding civil service employees, given that the Civil Service Commission has the authority to regulate "all conditions of employment in the classified service." The VNP Proposal in art. 4, § 6(21) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, coerce, or retaliate against any employee because of the employee's membership on the commission or attendance or scheduled attendance at any meeting of the commission. Plaintiffs argue that if a civil-service employee becomes a member of the commission, the Civil Service Commission's authority over "all conditions of employment" will no longer be exclusive. This argument has been abandoned because plaintiffs opted to give it cursory treatment. Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Daniel J. Aronoff Living Trust , 305 Mich. App. 496, 517, 853 N.W.2d 481 (2014). Even so, the two provisions can be harmonized. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the proposal abrogates the existing provision. D. CROSS-COMPLAINT Intervening defendants seek a writ of mandamus directing defendants to comply with their duties concerning certification, approval, and placement of the VNP Proposal on the 2018 general-election ballot. We have concluded that plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus should be denied. Consequently, intervening defendants' cross-claim should be granted with respect to the Board, because the Board has the duty to make the final decision regarding the sufficiency of the petition. Intervening defendants also ask that this Court designate that its order have immediate effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2). III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs' complaint is without merit. The VNP Proposal is not a general revision of the constitution because it is narrowly tailored to address a single subject: the replacement of the current constitutional provision providing for an eight-member redistricting commission with a thirteen-member commission comprised of eight partisan members and five members who are self-declared independent voters not affiliated with either major political party. The VNP Proposal is confined to a single purpose, that of correcting the partisan aspects of the constitutional provisions regarding the redistricting commission, and it does so without interfering with the operation of government. Hence, we conclude that the proposal is an amendment, albeit an amendment set forth in considerable detail, permitted by voter initiative. Also, the petition complies with the republication requirement. The petition neither abrogates nor alters the existing sections of the Constitution as asserted by plaintiffs. The complaint for mandamus is denied and the cross-complaint is granted. Defendant Board is directed to take the necessary steps to place the proposal on the ballot for the general election. No costs, a public question being involved. This opinion is given immediate effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2). ORDER The Court orders that the complaint for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. The Voters Not Politicians proposal offered by intervening defendants does not set forth a general revision of the constitution, but is confined to the single purpose of modifying current constitutional provisions regarding the redistricting commission. Therefore, the proposed constitutional amendment in this case is permitted by way of a ballot initiative. See Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, 280 Mich. App. 273, 761 N.W.2d 210 (2008), aff'd in result only 482 Mich. 960, 755 N.W.2d 157 (2008). Further, the petition complies with the republication requirement of MCL 168.482(3), where the petition neither abrogates nor alters the existing sections of the constitution as asserted by plaintiffs. Protect Our Jobs v. Bd. of State Canvassers (On Remand) , 492 Mich. 763, 822 N.W.2d 534 (2012). The cross-complaint is GRANTED. Defendants are directed to take all necessary measures to place the proposal on the November 2018 general election ballot. This order is given immediate effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2). Cavanagh, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Fort Hood, JJ., concurred. That statute provides, in pertinent part, "Petitions under section 2 of article XII of the state constitution of 1963 proposing an amendment to the constitution shall be filed with the secretary of state at least 120 days before the election at which the proposed amendment is to be voted upon." According to the Secretary and the Board, only 315,654 signatures were needed. On the initiative petition, the proposal is summarized as follows, in pertinent part: A proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution to create an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. If adopted, this amendment would transfer the authority to draw Congressional and State Legislative district lines from the Legislature and the Governor to the Independent Commission. The selection process will be administered by the Secretary of State. Thirteen commissioners will be randomly selected from a pool of registered voters, and consist of four members who self-identity with each of the two major political parties, and five non-affiliated, independent members. Current and former partisan elected officials, lobbyists, party officers and their employees are not eligible to serve. The term "gerrymander" is a portmanteau of the name of Elbridge Gerry-a signer of the Declaration of Independence, fifth Vice President of the United States, and the eighth Governor of Massachusetts-who was known for designing legislative districts in strange shapes, one of which resembled a salamander. See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm. , 576 U.S. ----, ---- n. 1, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2658 n. 1, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015). Justice McGrath concurred with his brethren justices and added with regard to gerrymandering that "[t]he greatest danger to the Republic is not from ignorance, but from machinations to defeat the expression of the popular will." Id. at 13-14, 52 N.W. 944 ( McGrath, J ., concurring). Aarab & Regnier, Mapping the Treasure State: What States Can Learn from Redistricting in Montana , 76 Mont. L. Rev. 257 (2015) (citation omitted), available at < < http://www.montanalaw%1freview.org/mont-l-rev/mapping-the-treasure-state-what-states-can-learn-from-redistricting-in-montana>> (accessed May 25, 2018) [https://perma.cc/2QBE-4DUW]. Gill v. Whitford, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-1161 (Wisconsin); Benisek v. Lamone , United States Supreme Court Docket No. 17-333 (Maryland). League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Secretary of State , United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 17-14148, 2017 WL 6610622 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 27, 2017). See Levitt, All About Redistricting, Who Draws the Lines < < http://redistricting.lls.edu/who.php>> (accessed May 24, 2018) < < https://perma.cc/BTB9-2QVR], and National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2010 (November 2009), pp. 161-162, available at < < http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Redistricting /Redistricting_2010.pdf>> (accessed May 25, 2018) [https://perma.cc/QR8V-WJZW]. See All About Redistricting, Who Draws the Lines . Const. 1835, art. 4, § 3 provided, in pertinent part, that the Legislature "shall apportion anew the representatives and senators among the several counties and districts, according to the number of white inhabitants." Const. 1835, art. 4, § 4 provided, in part, that representatives were to be chosen "by the electors of the several counties or districts into which the State shall be divided for that purpose." That section added that there would be one representative for each organized county "but no county hereafter organized shall be entitled to a separate representative until it shall have attained a population equal to the ratio of representation hereafter established." Id. Const. 1835, art. 4, § 6 provided: "The State shall be divided, at each new apportionment, into a number of not less than four nor more than eight senatorial districts, to be always composed on contiguous territory; so that each district shall elect an equal number of senators annually, as nearly as may be: and no county shall be divided in the formation of such districts." Const. 1850, art. 4, § 3 provided that representative districts should have "as nearly as may be, an equal number of white inhabitants," and it further provided, in pertinent part, that "[i]n every county entitled to more than one representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as the legislature shall prescribe, and divide the same into representative districts, equal to the number of representatives to which such county is entitled by law ...." Const. 1908, art. 5, § 3 provided, in pertinent part, that "[i]n every county entitled to more than one representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as shall be prescribed by law, divide the same into representative districts equal to the number of representatives to which such county is entitled by law ...." In 1960, an elector brought a mandamus action to prevent the Secretary of State from performing acts related to the senate districting, alleging that the 1952 amendments were violative of equal protection. Our Supreme Court dismissed the action, and the United States Supreme Court remanded. See Scholle v. Secretary of State , 360 Mich. 1, 104 N.W.2d 63 (1960), vacated and remanded sub nom Scholle v. Hare , 369 U.S. 429, 82 S.Ct. 910, 8 L.Ed.2d 1 (1962). On remand, our Supreme Court decided that the amendments concerning senate districts were invalid. Scholle v. Secretary of State (On Remand) , 367 Mich. 176, 116 N.W.2d 350 (1962). The Constitution also provides for procedures for territory that is annexed or merged with a city between apportionments. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 4. Islands also are taken into account. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 5. If a third political party offered a candidate for governor who received over 25% of the gubernatorial vote, the commission would increase to 12 members, with four chosen from the third political party's state organization. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 1. The Supreme Court also had original jurisdiction over an elector's application filed within 60 days of the final publication of the plan. The Court could direct the Secretary of State or the commission to perform their duties, review any final plan adopted by the commissioners, and "remand such plan to the commission for further action if it fail[ed] to comply with the requirements of this constitution." Const. 1963, art. 4, § 6, ¶ 8. Perhaps that suggested procedure could be considered somewhat of a precursor to the VNP Proposal of randomly drawing the names of candidates for the commission. Notably, the commission still met, notwithstanding that the United States Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court had ruled that much of the language regarding apportionment was not to be enforced. It was to be the final time that the commission was used. The Apol standards require contiguous single-member districts drawn by as equal population as possible. Specifically, the VNP Proposal modifies Article 4, §§ 1 through 6 ; Article 5, §§ 1, 2, and 4; and Article 6, §§ 1 and 4 of Michigan's 1963 Constitution. VNP Proposal, art. 5, § 2. VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 2. VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 3. VNP Proposal, art. 4, §§ 2 through 5. VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(1) ; VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(2)(F). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(1)(A). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(1)(B) through (E). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(2)(A)(i). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(2)(A). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(2)(E). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(5) through (6). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(8) through (12). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(13) (A through G). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(14) through (15). VNP Proposal, art. 4, § 6(19). Id. VNP Proposal, art. 5, §§ 1 through 2. The proposed language appears on the petition in all capital letters, but for ease of readability, we have not used all capital letters when quoting the proposal's language in this opinion. VNP Proposal, art. 5, § 4. VNP Proposal, art. 6, §§ 1 and 4. Under that rule, this Court has jurisdiction over an action for "mandamus against a state officer." MCL 168.479 provides, "Any person or persons, feeling themselves aggrieved by any determination made by said board, may have such determination reviewed by mandamus, certiorari, or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court." The 1835 Michigan Constitution included a passage regarding constitutional amendments, Const. 1835, art. 13, § 1, but limited those amendments to the Legislature. The 1908 Constitution permitted amendments by petition. Const. 1908, art. 17, § 2. Michigan's 1835 Constitution contained a section regarding a constitutional convention. See Const. 1835, art. 13, § 2. In light of the Supreme Court's holdings in Laing and Pontiac , it is puzzling why intervening defendants chose to discuss alternate definitions of "amendment" and "revision." We rely on the terms as defined in Laing , rather than the dictionary definitions proffered by intervening defendants. In Justice Corrigan 's concurrence, she noted that this Court did not clearly err in its articulation of the difference between an amendment and a general revision or in its ultimate conclusion. Two justices agreed with her. Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution , 482 Mich. at 964, 755 N.W.2d 157 ( Corrigan , J., concurring). However, as noted, a majority of our Supreme Court did not adopt this Court's reasoning. On appeal in Protect Our Jobs , our Supreme Court did not address the general revision/amendment argument raised in this Court, limiting its analysis to the republication requirement of Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 and MCL 168.482(3). VNP's general counsel admitted as much in his August 9, 2017 memorandum to the Board: "Creating a 'commission' that is not subject to the oversight or authority of the executive branch is a new and significantly different concept not previously found within the 1963 Constitution. Further, though this commission would be housed within the legislative branch, its actions are not subject to approval or oversight by the Legislature. This is another new concept." We reject intervening defendants' contention that the statutory republication requirement in MCL 168.482(3) is unconstitutional because it imposes undue burdens on the exercise of the people's right to propose amendments via voter initiative. When our Supreme Court has applied the requirements of MCL 168.482 to voter initiative-petitions, this Court is bound by that legal authority and for that reason, does not consider the constitutionality of the statute. Intervening defendants argue that Stand Up does not apply here because the language of Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9, which was at issue in Stand Up , is substantially different from the language of Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 at issue here. Notwithstanding, because our Supreme Court cited Stand Up in Protect Our Jobs , 492 Mich. at 778, 822 N.W.2d 534 -which involved Const. 1963, art. 2, § 2 -this Court does likewise. "The phrase 'the existing wording' should be taken literally." Massey , 457 Mich. at 418, 579 N.W.2d 862. That statute provides, "Circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state." The language from the 1908 Appropriations Clause, Const. 1908, art. 10, § 16, is the same as the language in the current version.

On order of the Chief Justice, respondent's "Motion for Additional Time for the Anticipated Proceedings" is GRANTED IN PART. Respondent shall have an additional 60 days to respond to the JTC's 28-day letter. If either party requires additional time to meet the deadline imposed by this Court's order of December 14, 2018, it may file a motion requesting such while explaining in detail the efforts that were made to comply with the deadline and the specific reasons for the amount of additional time requested.

Borrello, P.J. Respondent, Charles Frederick Portus, appeals as of right a probate court order requiring him to remain hospitalized at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP) and denying his request to be transferred to Harbor Point Center for treatment. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the probate court's order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of the annual petition for a continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment that was filed by the CFP on October 19, 2016. In this petition, it was alleged that respondent continued to be a "person requiring treatment" and that respondent was in need of continuing hospitalization for a period of one year. The probate court noted that in 1974, respondent was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the murder of a seven-year-old boy. As a result, respondent was committed to the CFP. The probate court held a hearing regarding the CFP petition on December 9, 2016. At the hearing, respondent's attorney stipulated that respondent was a person requiring treatment but challenged "the type of hospitalization" required, arguing that respondent should be transferred from the CFP to Harbor Point Center. Consistently with the parties' stipulation, the probate court entered an order requiring respondent to undergo continuing treatment and hospitalization at the CFP for a period not to exceed one year, subject to the court's later determination regarding the proper placement for respondent's treatment. The probate court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and directed the parties to submit briefs stating, among other things, their respective positions concerning "the burden of proof for placement of a person found to be in need of treatment." Responding to this directive, petitioner argued that under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq. , "there is no burden of proof on the petitioner to show clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence that [respondent] should continue to be placed at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry." Petitioner further argued that the probate court should exercise its discretion in weighing respondent's "need for treatment, the safety of the public, and what is the less [sic] restrictive setting to accomplish those goals." According to petitioner, the evidentiary standard contained in MCL 330.1465, which provides that "[a] judge or jury shall not find that an individual is a person requiring treatment unless that fact has been established by clear and convincing evidence," only applied to determining whether an individual was a "person requiring treatment." Petitioner argued that respondent had already been determined to be a person requiring treatment pursuant to the parties' stipulation and that the Mental Health Code did not contain any statutorily required "burden of proof" for determining an individual's placement facility. Respondent, in contrast, argued that the evidentiary standard in MCL 330.1465 should carry through to the determination regarding the appropriate placement and form of treatment for a person requiring treatment. Respondent also acknowledged that, in the alternative, a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard could potentially apply to the placement determination. Respondent argued, however, that regardless of the standard of proof applied, the burden of proof should remain with petitioner to establish that the CFP was the appropriate placement for respondent. The probate court addressed this issue at the outset of the evidentiary hearing, concluding as follows: [I]t's really up to the judge. There is no burden of proof with regard to the treatment. The burden of proof applies only to whether the person is mentally ill or not. That's already been stipulated to. So now it's just to see if this is the most appropriate treatment. Following the presentation of witness testimony, exhibits, and oral argument during the evidentiary hearing, the probate court announced its findings and ruling on the record. The probate court denied respondent's request to be placed at Harbor Point Center for treatment, and it ordered that respondent would remain at the CFP "until further order of the court ...." An amended continuing order for mental health treatment was entered consistently with the probate court's oral ruling, which ordered respondent to be hospitalized at the CFP "until further order of the court" but up to 365 days. This appeal ensued. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court "reviews for an abuse of discretion a probate court's dispositional rulings and reviews for clear error the factual findings underlying a probate court's decision." In re Bibi Guardianship , 315 Mich. App. 323, 328, 890 N.W.2d 387 (2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the probate court "chooses an outcome outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Id . at 329, 890 N.W.2d 387 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "A probate court's finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding." Id . (quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo matters of statutory interpretation. Redd Guardianship , 321 Mich. App. 398, 404, 909 N.W.2d 289 (2017). The probate court "necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." Ronnisch Constr. Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC , 499 Mich. 544, 552, 886 N.W.2d 113 (2016). III. ANALYSIS On appeal, respondent first argues that the probate court erred by ruling that there was no applicable burden of proof with respect to determining the appropriate form of treatment to order for respondent. This issue appears to be one of first impression and presents this Court with questions of statutory interpretation. "When interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Averill v. Dauterman , 284 Mich. App. 18, 22, 772 N.W.2d 797 (2009). In doing so, we first turn to "the specific language of the statute, considering the fair and natural import of the terms employed, in view of the subject matter of the law." Id . We must "examine the statute as a whole, reading individual words and phrases in the context of the entire legislative scheme." Michigan ex rel. Gurganus v. CVS Caremark Corp. , 496 Mich. 45, 59, 852 N.W.2d 103 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Proceedings seeking an order of involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code for an individual on the basis of mental illness, including when such proceedings are instituted following a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict, generally are referred to as "civil commitment" proceedings. See, e.g., People v. Dobben , 440 Mich. 679, 690-691, 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992) ; People v. Miller , 440 Mich. 631, 640, 489 N.W.2d 60 (1992) ; People v. Williams , 228 Mich. App. 546, 556-557, 580 N.W.2d 438 (1998) ; In re KB , 221 Mich. App. 414, 417, 562 N.W.2d 208 (1997) ; In re Baker , 117 Mich. App. 591, 592-593, 595, 324 N.W.2d 91 (1982) ; In re Wagstaff , 93 Mich. App. 755, 757, 287 N.W.2d 339 (1979). The specific procedures for obtaining continuing orders of hospitalization or other forms of treatment based on a person's mental illness are contained in various provisions of Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1400 et seq . In the instant case, respondent's appeal stems from the CFP's petition for a continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment filed pursuant to § 473, MCL 330.1473, which provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]ot less than 14 days before the expiration of [a] ... continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment issued under [ MCL 330.1472a ] or [ MCL 330.1485a ], a hospital director ... shall file a petition for a second or continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment if the hospital director or supervisor believes the individual continues to be a person requiring treatment and that the individual is likely to refuse treatment on a voluntary basis when the order expires." The filing of a petition under § 473 before the expiration of a continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment triggers MCL 330.1472a(4), which provides, in relevant part, as follows: Upon the receipt of a petition under section 473 before the expiration of a continuing order of involuntary mental health treatment ... and a finding that the individual continues to be a person requiring treatment, the court shall issue another continuing order for involuntary mental health treatment as provided in [ MCL 330.1472a(3) ] for a period not to exceed 1 year. The court shall continue to issue consecutive 1-year continuing orders for involuntary mental health treatment under this section until a continuing order expires without a petition having been filed under section 473 or the court finds that the individual is not a person requiring treatment. MCL 330.1472a(4) directs our attention to § 472a(3), MCL 330.1472a(3), which lists the options for involuntary mental health treatment and imposes time limitations for those orders. Section 472a(3) provides, in relevant part, as follows: [T]he court shall issue a continuing order for involuntary mental health treatment that shall be limited in duration as follows: (a) A continuing order of hospitalization shall not exceed 1 year. (b) A continuing order of alternative treatment or assisted outpatient treatment shall not exceed 1 year. (c) A continuing order of combined hospitalization and alternative treatment or hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment shall not exceed 1 year. The hospitalization portion of a continuing order for combined hospitalization and alternative treatment or hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment shall not exceed 90 days. Furthermore, the term "involuntary mental health treatment" is statutorily defined for purposes of Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code as "court-ordered hospitalization, alternative treatment, or combined hospitalization and alternative treatment as described in section 468." MCL 330.1400(f). Section 468(2), MCL 330.1468(2), provides descriptions of the forms of treatment that may be ordered upon a finding that an individual is a person requiring treatment, and these descriptions correspond to the forms of treatment referred to in MCL 330.1472a(3). Section 468(2) provides, in relevant part, as follows: [I]f an individual is found to be a person requiring treatment, the court shall do 1 of the following: (a) Order the individual hospitalized in a hospital recommended by the community mental health services program or other entity as designated by the department. (b) Order the individual hospitalized in a private or veterans administration hospital at the request of the individual or his or her family, if private or federal funds are to be utilized and if the hospital agrees. ... (c) Order the individual to undergo a program of treatment that is an alternative to hospitalization and that is recommended by the community mental health services program or other entity as designated by the department. (d) Order the individual to undergo a program of combined hospitalization and alternative treatment or hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment, as recommended by the community mental health services program or other entity as designated by the department. (e) Order the individual to receive assisted outpatient treatment through a community mental health services program, or other entity as designated by the department, capable of providing the necessary treatment and services to assist the individual to live and function in the community as specified in the order. In accordance with this statutory framework, the issuance of a continuing order for involuntary mental health treatment essentially requires the probate court to follow a two-step process. First, the probate court must find "that the individual continues to be a person requiring treatment ...." MCL 330.1472a(4). "A judge or jury shall not find that an individual is a person requiring treatment unless that fact has been established by clear and convincing evidence ." MCL 330.1465 (emphasis added). The relevant statutory definition of a "person requiring treatment" is contained in MCL 330.1401. In this case, respondent conceded that he was a "person requiring treatment"; hence, the first step is not at issue. Second, after the probate court finds that an individual is a person requiring treatment, the probate court "shall issue another continuing order for involuntary mental health treatment as provided in [ MCL 330.1472a(3) ] for a period not to exceed 1 year." MCL 330.1472a(4). Both § 472a(3) and § 468(2), which is incorporated by reference to the statutory definition of "involuntary mental health treatment," describe the potential treatment options: hospitalization, alternative treatment, assisted outpatient treatment, a combination of hospitalization and alternative treatment, or a combination of hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment. In determining which treatment option to order, there is statutory guidance for a probate court in MCL 330.1469a, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Except for a petition filed as described under [ MCL 330.1434(6) ],[ ] before ordering a course of treatment for an individual found to be a person requiring treatment, the court shall review a report on alternatives to hospitalization that was prepared under section 453a not more than 15 days before the court issues the order. After reviewing the report, the court shall do all of the following: (a) Determine whether a treatment program that is an alternative to hospitalization or that follows an initial period of hospitalization is adequate to meet the individual's treatment needs and is sufficient to prevent harm that the individual may inflict upon himself or herself or upon others within the near future. (b) Determine whether there is an agency or mental health professional available to supervise the individual's alternative treatment program. (c) Inquire as to the individual's desires regarding alternatives to hospitalization. (2) If the court determines that there is a treatment program that is an alternative to hospitalization that is adequate to meet the individual's treatment needs and prevent harm that the individual may inflict upon himself or herself or upon others within the near future and that an agency or mental health professional is available to supervise the program, the court shall issue an order for alternative treatment or combined hospitalization and alternative treatment in accordance with section 472a . The order shall state the community mental health services program or, if private arrangements have been made for the reimbursement of mental health treatment services in an alternative setting, the name of the mental health agency or professional that is directed to supervise the individual's alternative treatment program. The order may provide that if an individual refuses to comply with a psychiatrist's order to return to the hospital, a peace officer shall take the individual into protective custody and transport the individual to the hospital selected. [Emphasis added.] With respect to the report, § 453a, MCL 330.1453a, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: [T]he court shall order a report assessing the current availability and appropriateness for the individual of alternatives to hospitalization, including alternatives available following an initial period of court-ordered hospitalization. The report shall be prepared by the community mental health services program, a public or private agency, or another individual found suitable by the court. In deciding which individual or agency should be ordered to prepare the report, the court shall give preference to an agency or individual familiar with the treatment resources in the individual's home community. Additionally, two more statutes are relevant to our consideration of respondent's first issue on appeal. First, MCL 330.1470 provides as follows: Prior to ordering the hospitalization of an individual, the court shall inquire into the adequacy of treatment to be provided to the individual by the hospital. Hospitalization shall not be ordered unless the hospital in which the individual is to be hospitalized can provide him with treatment which is adequate and appropriate to his condition. Next, MCL 330.1460 provides as follows: Counsel for the subject of a petition shall be allowed adequate time for investigation of the matters at issue and for preparation, and shall be permitted to present the evidence that counsel believes necessary to a proper disposition of the proceedings, including evidence as to alternatives to hospitalization. As noted, the statutory framework does not explicitly specify an evidentiary standard or burden of proof that is applicable to the probate court's findings during this second phase of the process. Agreeing with petitioner, the probate court ruled that the absence of an evidentiary standard or burden of proof meant that none need be employed. Respondent argued in the probate court and in this Court that, at a minimum, the default standard in civil cases-preponderance of the evidence-applies to the probate court's determination of the form of treatment to order. As an initial matter, it is necessary for this Court to clarify that although both the parties and the probate court generally framed the issue in terms of the required "burden of proof," there are actually two distinct, but related, concepts at play here: the burden of proof and the standard of proof. Typically, the term "burden of proof" refers to "[a] party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge" or "a proposition regarding which of two contending litigants loses when there is no evidence on a question or when the answer is simply too difficult to find." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). "The burden of proof includes both the burden of persuasion and the burden of production ." Id . Hence, "[i]n its strict sense the term 'burden of proof' refers to the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a case," and a "secondary use of the term ... denotes the burden of going forward, i.e., the obligation to respond to a prima facie case established by the opposing party." Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp. , 432 Mich. 527, 550, 443 N.W.2d 354 (1989) (opinion by ARCHER , J.); see also id . at 530, 443 N.W.2d 354 (opinion of the Court). By contrast, the term "standard of proof" has been defined as follows: "[t]he degree or level of proof demanded in a specific case, such as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'by a preponderance of the evidence'; a rule about the quality of the evidence that a party must bring forward to prevail." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). Therefore, although the parties and the probate court focused on whether there was an applicable "burden" of proof, we first must ascertain the requisite quantum of proof, i.e., the standard of proof, on which a probate court must base its decision regarding the form of treatment and placement for an individual found to be a person requiring treatment. In discerning the applicable standard of proof, we begin by noting that the relevant statutes make clear that the probate court does not have unfettered discretion to choose a form of treatment and placement for an individual found to be a person requiring treatment. The probate court is required to order the preparation of a report on the availability and appropriateness of alternatives to hospitalization for the individual and, after reviewing that report, make particular determinations related to potential alternatives to hospitalization. MCL 330.1453a ; MCL 330.1469a(1). Specifically, the probate court must determine (1) whether an alternative treatment program is "adequate to meet the individual's treatment needs," (2) whether an alternative treatment program is "sufficient to prevent harm that the individual may inflict upon himself or herself or upon others within the near future," and (3) whether an agency or mental health professional is "available to supervise the individual's alternative treatment program." MCL 330.1469a(1)(a) and (b). The probate court must also inquire about the "individual's desires regarding alternatives to hospitalization." MCL 330.1469a(1)(c). If the probate court finds that the requirements in MCL 330.1469a(1)(a) and (b) are met with respect to a treatment program that is an alternative to hospitalization, then "the court shall issue an order for alternative treatment or combined hospitalization and alternative treatment in accordance with section 472a." MCL 330.1469a(2) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has explained that "courts should give the ordinary and accepted meaning to the mandatory word 'shall' ... unless to do so would clearly frustrate legislative intent as evidenced by other statutory language or by reading the statute as a whole." Browder v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co. , 413 Mich. 603, 612, 321 N.W.2d 668 (1982). There is no indication that "shall" was not meant to be given its usual mandatory meaning in MCL 330.1469a(2), and the Legislature therefore gave the probate court a mandatory directive to order some form of alternative treatment when that form of treatment satisfies the standards set forth in MCL 330.1469a(1)(a) and (b). See Browder , 413 Mich. at 612, 321 N.W.2d 668. Accordingly, if the probate court determines that there is an adequate form of alternative treatment that satisfies the standards in MCL 330.1469a(1)(a) and (b), then the probate court does not have the discretion to order hospitalization as the sole form of treatment. Although we recognize that in those circumstances the probate court may have some degree of discretion to determine the nature of alternative treatment to order or how to structure a combination of hospitalization and alternative treatment, any discretion held by the probate court is certainly not without limit. "[T]his mandatory directive indicates that a standard giving significant discretion to the probate court is not the correct one to use here." Redd , 321 Mich. App. at 409, 909 N.W.2d 289. Next, given that the probate court is statutorily required to make specific determinations before ordering a course of treatment, a court cannot make these determinations in a vacuum or without referring to evidence. In this case, the probate court, despite ruling that there was no applicable burden of proof, clearly understood that its decision was based on evidence: it held an evidentiary hearing where it heard witness testimony and admitted exhibits. The probate court considered a report on alternatives to hospitalization, and it explained during the course of its oral ruling that it was considering the record evidence. However, the question becomes one regarding the necessary strength or persuasiveness of that evidence required to justify the probate court's ultimate factual findings. In other words, there must be a "standard of proof" because without one, a probate court could conceivably justify a factual finding on the basis of "some" or even a "scintilla" of evidence. As we have previously indicated, although the Legislature provided that clear and convincing evidence is the required standard of proof for the initial finding that an individual is a "person requiring treatment," MCL 330.1465, there is no standard of proof provided in MCL 330.1469a regarding the probate court's findings on the adequacy and suitability of alternative treatments to hospitalization. "We must construe this omission of a provision in one statute that is included in another statute ... as intentional." Redd , 321 Mich. App. at 408, 909 N.W.2d 289 (quotation marks and citation omitted; ellipsis in original). We therefore conclude that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in MCL 330.1465 does not apply to the determination regarding the individual's appropriate form of treatment and placement. "When a statute fails to state the standard that probate courts are to use to establish a particular fact, the default standard in civil cases-preponderance of the evidence-applies." Id . at 409, 909 N.W.2d 289 ; see also Mayor of Cadillac v. Blackburn , 306 Mich. App. 512, 522, 857 N.W.2d 529 (2014) ("Further, because the statute does not state the quantum of proof necessary ... , the default standard in civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence, applies."). There is no indication in MCL 330.1469a that some standard of proof other than the default preponderance-of-the-evidence standard should apply, and as we have discussed, some standard of proof is necessary to substantiate a probate court's determinations regarding the appropriate treatment and placement to order. Therefore, we hold that MCL 330.1469a requires that a preponderance of the evidence support the probate court's findings with respect to its determinations regarding an individual's treatment and placement. Having ascertained the standard of proof required by the statute, we next turn to addressing the allocation of the burden of proof. Again, the statute is silent on this point. Generally, the party who is the proponent of a given position bears the burden of establishing the facts to support that position. Blackburn , 306 Mich. App. at 521, 857 N.W.2d 529. "The party alleging a fact to be true should suffer the consequences of a failure to prove the truth of that allegation." Kar v. Hogan , 399 Mich. 529, 539, 251 N.W.2d 77 (1976), not followed on other grounds by In re Karmey Estate , 468 Mich. 68, 69, 73-74, 658 N.W.2d 796 (2003). In accordance with this principle, we hold that the proponent of a particular form of treatment or placement at a specific facility for an individual who has been found to be a person requiring treatment bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to persuade the probate court to enter such an order and for the probate court to be legally justified in entering such an order pursuant to the statutory requirements in Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code that we have previously discussed. Petitioner, in arguing that there is no burden or standard of proof applicable to the probate court's treatment determination, compares the probate court's decision regarding the appropriate form of treatment to a trial court's discretionary sentencing decision in criminal proceedings. Petitioner relies on In re Portus , 142 Mich. App. 799, 803, 371 N.W.2d 871 (1985), in which this Court held that there was no requirement that a jury determine the appropriate treatment for an individual, although the question whether that individual continued to require treatment was submitted to the jury pursuant to MCL 330.1458. We reasoned that the circumstances of involuntary commitment were "analogous to the criminal setting, where the jury determines the guilt and then the trial judge decides the sentence." Portus , 142 Mich. App. at 803, 371 N.W.2d 871. But petitioner's reliance is misplaced because we made the comparison in Portus for the sole purpose of rationalizing why an individual is entitled to a jury determination regarding whether he or she continues to require treatment while not being entitled to a jury determination of the appropriate form of treatment. We did not state that a judge's determination of the appropriate form of treatment is not subject to any standards for supporting that determination. Moreover, a trial court's sentencing discretion in the criminal context is also not unlimited. For example, although a sentencing court may exercise its discretion to impose a sentence that represents a departure from the applicable guidelines range without articulating a substantial and compelling reason, the sentence is still reviewable by an appellate court for "reasonableness." People v. Lockridge , 498 Mich. 358, 392, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015). When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, an appellate court determines whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by violating the "principle of proportionality," which requires sentences to be "proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender." People v. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. 453, 459-460, 902 N.W.2d 327 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A sentencing court is still obligated to take the legislative sentencing guidelines into account when sentencing, id . at 474-475, 902 N.W.2d 327, and the trial court's factual determinations under the sentencing guidelines must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, People v. Hardy , 494 Mich. 430, 438, 835 N.W.2d 340 (2013). Thus, there is simply no merit in any comparison to criminal sentencing as support for the conclusion that no standard of proof is required to support the probate court's treatment determination. In sum, the probate court erred by ruling that there was no applicable burden of proof to its treatment determination and issuing its treatment order without tying it to any evidentiary standard. We cannot conclude that this error was harmless. A lower court's error "is not ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take this action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice." MCR 2.613(A). An error is harmless if it did not affect the outcome of the proceeding. In re Sprint Communications Co., LP, Complaint , 234 Mich. App. 22, 42, 592 N.W.2d 825 (1999). In this case, because the probate court believed that there was no applicable burden or standard of proof and made its findings and conclusions while operating under that belief, we cannot ascertain on what basis the probate court made its findings. Therefore, the probate court's error was not harmless. Id . Moreover, we "defer to the probate court on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court." In re Brody Conservatorship , 321 Mich. App. 332, 336, 909 N.W.2d 849 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, when a trial court fails to apply the proper legal standards, normally the appropriate appellate remedy is to remand to that trial court for application of the proper legal standards. See People v. Barritt , 501 Mich. 872, 901 N.W.2d 859 (2017). Respondent also raises three other distinct claims of error on appeal that we must address in order to provide guidance to the probate court on remand. First, respondent argues that the probate court erred by indicating that after determining respondent was a person requiring treatment, the probate court would look to MCL 330.1468(2) to determine the type of treatment to order. Respondent maintains, and petitioner agrees on appeal, that MCL 330.1468(2) applies only to petitions filed under § 434, MCL 330.1434, and that § 468(2) is therefore inapplicable in the instant case because the subject petition was filed pursuant to MCL 330.1473 rather than MCL 330.1434. The parties are incorrect. Admittedly, MCL 330.1468(2), which we have previously set forth more completely, begins as follows: "For a petition filed under section 434 , if an individual is found to be a person requiring treatment, the court shall do 1 of the following...." (Emphasis added.) As we have already explained, a petition filed under MCL 330.1473 before the expiration of a continuing order triggers MCL 330.1472a(4), which provides that once such a petition has been received and an individual has been found to be a person requiring treatment, "the court shall issue another continuing order for involuntary mental health treatment as provided in subsection (3) for a period not to exceed 1 year." (Emphasis added.) However, the term "involuntary mental health treatment" is statutorily defined to mean "court-ordered hospitalization, alternative treatment, or combined hospitalization and alternative treatment as described in section 468 ." MCL 330.1400(f) (emphasis added). Thus, the probate court was specifically directed to look to MCL 330.1468, which sets forth these potential treatment options, and the probate court did not err by referring to this statute. Next, respondent argues that the probate court erred by concluding that Harbor Point was not a "hospital." With respect to its determination on this point, the probate court stated as follows during the course of announcing its final ruling from the bench: [T]he court rejects the stipulation of the prosecutor to the characterization of Harbor Point Center as a hospital, because one, it is not a hospital, it is a direct community placement pursuant to the October 13th, 2016 letter of Joseph Corso of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. For purposes of the Mental Health Code, the terms "hospital" and "psychiatric hospital" are both defined as "an inpatient program operated by the department for the treatment of individuals with serious mental illness or serious emotional disturbance or a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric unit licensed under [ MCL 330.1137 ]." MCL 330.1100b(7) ; MCL 330.1100 (stating that the definitions in MCL 330.1100a to MCL 330.1100d apply to the Mental Health Code unless otherwise required by the context). A "psychiatric unit" is "a unit of a general hospital that provides inpatient services for individuals with serious mental illness or serious emotional disturbance," and as used in this definition, " 'general hospital' means a hospital as defined in section 20106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20106." MCL 330.1100c(8). " 'Department' means the department of health and human services." MCL 330.1100a(21). " 'Hospitalization' or 'hospitalize' means to provide treatment for an individual as an inpatient in a hospital." MCL 330.1100b(9). We cannot find where the probate court applied these statutory definitions in determining whether Harbor Point was a "hospital" for purposes of the Mental Health Code. Should this issue arise on remand, the probate court must determine whether the evidence establishes that Harbor Point meets the statutory definition of "hospital" for purposes of the Mental Health Code, because that affects whether placement at Harbor Point is actually "an alternative to hospitalization" or "alternative treatment" under MCL 330.1468(2) and MCL 330.1469a(1) and (2). (Emphasis added.) It is also important to make proper a determination whether a given facility-Harbor Point in this case-is a "hospital" because under MCL 330.1471, "[p]reference between the department designated hospital and other available hospitals shall be given to the hospital which is located nearest to the individual's residence except when the individual requests otherwise or there are other compelling reasons for an order reversing the preference." Lastly, respondent argues that the probate court's order that respondent would remain at the CFP "until further order of the court" was contrary to certain statutory provisions in the Mental Health Code that pertain to the release of patients, specifically MCL 330.2050(5) and MCL 330.1476 to MCL 330.1479. MCL 330.2050(5) provides as follows: The release provisions of [ MCL 330.1476 to MCL 330.1479 ] of this act shall apply to a person found to have committed a crime by a court or jury, but who is acquitted by reason of insanity, except that a person shall not be discharged or placed on leave without first being evaluated and recommended for discharge or leave by the department's program for forensic psychiatry, and authorized leave or absence from the hospital may be extended for a period of 5 years. Thus, MCL 330.2050(5) expressly incorporates the release provisions found in MCL 330.1476 to MCL 330.1479. Of those provisions, the only one that is applicable to respondent at this juncture is MCL 330.1476, which provides, in relevant part: (2) The hospital director shall discharge a patient hospitalized by court order when the patient's mental condition is such that he or she no longer meets the criteria of a person requiring treatment. (3) If a patient discharged under subsection (1) or (2) has been hospitalized by court order, or if court proceedings are pending, the court shall be notified of the discharge by the hospital. " 'Discharge' means an absolute, unconditional release of an individual from a facility by action of the facility or a court." MCL 330.1100a(27). " 'Hospital director' means the chief administrative officer of a hospital or his or her designee." MCL 330.1100b(8). These statutes provide a procedural mechanism for discharging an individual who "no longer meets the criteria of a person requiring treatment," without requiring a court order sanctioning the discharge. MCL 330.1100a(27) ; MCL 330.1100b(8) ; MCL 330.1476(2) ; MCL 330.2050(5). Therefore, the probate court erred by ordering respondent to remain at the CFP "until further order of the court." This language is contrary to MCL 330.1476(2) and MCL 330.2050(5) despite the fact that the probate court's order otherwise complied with the time limitation in MCL 330.1472a(3)(a) by indicating that respondent would be hospitalized for up to 365 days. On remand, if the probate court determines that respondent must remain hospitalized at the CFP, the probate court shall not include language ordering respondent to remain "until further order of the court." See People v. Carson , 169 Mich. App. 343, 344, 346-347, 425 N.W.2d 548 (1988) (holding that circuit court's order was contrary to law when the order restrained the CFP from discharging an individual who had been acquitted by reason of insanity until after a petition had been filed in the circuit court and the individual had been found not to require treatment pursuant to a hearing on the matter). IV. CONCLUSION Under the provisions of the Mental Health Code applicable to obtaining continuing orders of involuntary mental health treatment, a probate court's treatment determination must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the probate court did not apply this standard and instead determined that no evidentiary standard applied, it erred. On remand, the probate court must resolve conflicts in the evidence and make the necessary factual findings under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof with each party retaining the burden of persuasion with respect to the placement and form of treatment each seeks. Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. M. J. Kelly and Boonstra, JJ., concurred with Borrello, P.J. See MCL 330.1401 (defining "person requiring treatment" for purposes of Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1400 et seq . ). MCL 330.1401 provides as follows: (1) As used in this chapter, "person requiring treatment" means (a), (b), (c), or (d): (a) An individual who has mental illness, and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation. (b) An individual who has mental illness, and who as a result of that mental illness is unable to attend to those of his or her basic physical needs such as food, clothing, or shelter that must be attended to in order for the individual to avoid serious harm in the near future, and who has demonstrated that inability by failing to attend to those basic physical needs. (c) An individual who has mental illness, whose judgment is so impaired by that mental illness that he or she is unable to understand his or her need for treatment, and whose impaired judgment, on the basis of competent clinical opinion, presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to the individual in the near future or presents a substantial risk of physical harm to others in the near future. (d) An individual who has mental illness, whose understanding of the need for treatment is impaired to the point that he or she is unlikely to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment that has been determined necessary to prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of his or her condition, and whose noncompliance with treatment has been a factor in the individual's placement in a psychiatric hospital, prison, or jail at least 2 times within the last 48 months or whose noncompliance with treatment has been a factor in the individual's committing 1 or more acts, attempts, or threats of serious violent behavior within the last 48 months. An individual under this subdivision is only eligible to receive assisted outpatient treatment. (2) An individual whose mental processes have been weakened or impaired by a dementia, an individual with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy, or an individual with alcoholism or other drug dependence is not a person requiring treatment under this chapter unless the individual also meets the criteria specified in subsection (1). An individual described in this subsection may be hospitalized under the informal or formal voluntary hospitalization provisions of this chapter if he or she is considered clinically suitable for hospitalization by the hospital director. MCL 330.1468(3) also directs the probate court to consider certain factors in "developing an assisted outpatient treatment order...." However, this provision is not implicated in the instant appeal because there was no attempt to seek assisted outpatient treatment for respondent. This exception is not implicated by the issues raised in this appeal because the instant matter involves a petition filed under MCL 330.1473 rather than a petition filed under MCL 330.1434. The majority concurred in the part of the opinion by Justice Archer from which we have quoted. Palenkas , 432 Mich. at 530, 443 N.W.2d 354 (opinion of the Court). We note that respondent expressly argued for application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and, understandably, has not argued that applying this standard to the probate court's treatment determination would violate his right to due process. Accordingly, we express no opinion on that issue. As previously stated, the involuntary hospitalization proceedings at issue in this case are civil proceedings. In reaching this conclusion, we draw guidance from our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court considers these types of proceedings, through which an individual is involuntarily hospitalized after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime, to be civil in nature. See Dobben , 440 Mich. at 691, 488 N.W.2d 726 (discussing the CFP's responsibility for "evaluat[ing] and fil[ing] reports where civil commitment is sought subsequent to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity"); People v. Webb , 458 Mich. 265, 281, 580 N.W.2d 884 (1998) (explaining that MCL 330.2050, which contains procedures for involuntarily committing persons acquitted of a criminal charge by reason of insanity, is a statute designed to "promote public safety" and "establish[ ] a procedure for determining whether a person acquitted by reason of insanity can safely be returned to society" because "[p]ersons acquitted by reason of insanity, particularly where the facts are grave, cannot be allowed simply to walk out the front door of the courthouse"). Most importantly, our Supreme Court in People v. McQuillan , 392 Mich. 511, 546-547, 221 N.W.2d 569 (1974), held that upon completion of a "period of temporary statutory detention" for purposes of examination and observation, "due process and equal protection require that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity must have the benefit of commitment and release provisions equal to those available to those civilly committed." Our Michigan standard, which is now reflected in MCL 330.2050, appears to provide more than the minimum constitutional due-process protection to which a person in respondent's circumstances is entitled under United States Supreme Court precedent. In Jones v. United States , 463 U.S. 354, 370, 103 S.Ct. 3043, 77 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1983), the Court held that under the Due Process Clause, "when a criminal defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits the Government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to himself or society." The Jones Court explained that in such a case, the initial commitment could be based on the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict alone without conducting an additional civil commitment hearing. Id . at 366, 103 S.Ct. 3043. MCL 330.1458 currently provides, as it did at the time that Portus was decided: The subject of a petition may demand that the question of whether he requires treatment or is legally incompetent be heard by a jury. A jury shall consist of 6 persons to be chosen in the same manner as jurors in civil proceedings. We acknowledge that relevant portion of MCL 330.1468(2) at issue-"For a petition filed under section 434"-was the result of an amendment that took effect on February 14, 2017, shortly before the evidentiary hearing in this matter. 2016 PA 320. However, this change to the statute does not negate the fact that the forms of treatment described in MCL 330.1468(2) are still expressly incorporated into MCL 330.1472a(4) through the statutory definition of "involuntary mental health treatment" contained in MCL 330.1400(f). MCL 333.20106(5) has recently been amended, but the changes are not substantive. 2017 PA 167. MCL 333.20106(5) currently provides as follows: "Hospital" means a facility offering inpatient, overnight care, and services for observation, diagnosis, and active treatment of an individual with a medical, surgical, obstetric, chronic, or rehabilitative condition requiring the daily direction or supervision of a physician. Hospital does not include a mental health hospital licensed or operated by the department of health and human services or a hospital operated by the department of corrections.

Murphy, P.J. Defendant, the Department of Treasury (the Department), was conducting audits in three tax cases involving plaintiffs when the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed 2014 PA 3, which was made effective February 6, 2014, and which allowed for a minimal extension of the four-year limitations period for a deficiency assessment if a Department audit was commenced after September 30, 2014. However, 2014 PA 3 was silent regarding Department audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, such as plaintiffs' audits, although the statutory law in place when the audits were initiated had provided for the suspension or tolling of the four-year limitations period when an audit was performed. There is no dispute that if the audits conducted in these cases tolled the limitations period, the deficiency assessments issued by the Department against plaintiffs were timely, and, given the dates the audits were commenced, no party is maintaining that the audits resulted in extensions of the limitations period under the new law. Plaintiffs contend that because 2014 PA 3 did not contain a savings clause tied to the old law with respect to audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, the audits did not toll the limitations period because the tolling language had been repealed by 2014 PA 3, and, therefore, the four-year limitations period applied absent any adjustment whatsoever for the audits, rendering all the deficiency assessments untimely. The Department argues that because the audits had already been commenced before the 2014 change in the law and were ongoing when 2014 PA 3 became effective, as well as on September 30, 2014, those audits remained subject to the previous law allowing for the tolling of the limitations period. The Court of Claims agreed with the Department, summarily dismissing all three tax challenges in which plaintiffs maintained that the deficiency assessments were time-barred. Plaintiffs appeal as of right, and we hold that the audits continued to toll the limitations period after 2014 PA 3 took effect. Accordingly, we affirm the rulings by the Court of Claims. We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition, as well as issues of statutory construction. Kemp v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich. , 500 Mich. 245, 251-252, 901 N.W.2d 534 (2017). With respect to principles of statutory interpretation, the Kemp Court observed: When interpreting statutes, our goal is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, focusing first on the statute's plain language. In so doing, we examine the statute as a whole, reading individual words and phrases in the context of the entire legislative scheme. When a statute's language is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. [ Id. at 252, 901 N.W.2d 534 (citations and quotation marks omitted).] Before the Legislature enacted 2014 PA 3, MCL 205.27a provided, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) A deficiency, interest, or penalty shall not be assessed after the expiration of 4 years after the date set for the filing of the required return or after the date the return was filed, whichever is later.... (3) The running of the statute of limitations is suspended for the following: (a) The period pending a final determination of tax, including audit, conference, hearing, and litigation of liability for federal income tax or a tax administered by the department and for 1 year after that period. (b) The period for which the taxpayer and the state treasurer have consented to in writing that the period be extended. [ MCL 205.27a, as amended by 2012 PA 211.] Under former MCL 205.27a(3)(a), the four-year period of limitations for the Department to assess a deficiency was tolled during the pendency of an audit, plus an additional year following the conclusion of the audit. See Krueger v. Dep't of Treasury , 296 Mich.App. 656, 660-661, 822 N.W.2d 267 (2012). Thus, as an overly simplified example, if a Department audit was initiated in April 2003 regarding an April 2000 state tax return and the audit was not completed until April 2007, resulting in a tolling period of five years (four years of audit, plus one year thereafter) or until April 2008, the Department would have until April 2009 to assess a deficiency (because one year remained on the four-year limitations period when tolling began). See id. With the enactment of 2014 PA 3, which was made effective February 6, 2014, MCL 205.27a now provides, in relevant part: (2) A deficiency, interest, or penalty shall not be assessed after the expiration of 4 years after the date set for the filing of the required return or after the date the return was filed, whichever is later.... (3) The statute of limitations shall be extended for the following if the period exceeds that described in subsection (2): (a) The period pending a final determination of tax through audit, conference, hearing, and litigation of liability for federal income tax and for 1 year after that period. (b) The period for which the taxpayer and the state treasurer have consented to in writing that the period be extended. (c) The period described in [ MCL 205.21(6) and (7) ] or pending the completion of an appeal of a final assessment. As reflected in a comparison of former Subsection (3) of MCL 205.27a to its current version, the general four-year limitations period, which remained unchanged, is now subject to certain extensions , not tolling , as had been the case. Furthermore, the reference to taxes administered by the Department that had been found in former Subsection (3)(a) was deleted by 2014 PA 3, with Subsection (3)(a) in its present form referring only to federal income tax proceedings. However, relevant to the instant cases, the current version of Subsection (3)(c) of MCL 205.27a provides for an extension of the four-year limitations period for, in part, the period described in MCL 205.21(6) and (7). These subsection were also enacted as part of 2014 PA 3, and they provide as follows: (6) For audits commenced after September 30, 2014, the department must complete fieldwork and provide a written preliminary audit determination for any tax period no later than 1 year after the period provided for in [ MCL 205.27a(2) ] without regard to the extension provided for in [ MCL 205.27a(3) ].[ ] The limitation described in this subsection does not apply to any tax period in which the department and the taxpayer agreed in writing to extend the statute of limitations described in [ MCL 205.27a(2) ]. (7) For audits commenced after September 30, 2014, unless otherwise agreed to by the department and the taxpayer, the final assessment issued under [ MCL 205.21(2)(f) ] must be issued within 9 months of the date that the department provided the taxpayer with a written preliminary audit determination unless the taxpayer, for any reason, requests reconsideration of the preliminary audit determination or the taxpayer requests an informal conference under [ MCL 205.21(2)(c) ]. A request for reconsideration by a taxpayer permits, but does not require, the department to delay the issuance of a final assessment under [ MCL 205.21(2)(f) ]. [Emphasis added.] Thus, with respect to audits commenced by the Department after September 30, 2014, any written preliminary audit determination must generally be completed no later than five years after the date that a tax return had to be filed or the actual filing date of the return, and any deficiency assessment must generally be issued within nine months from when the Department provided the taxpayer with the audit determination. Accordingly, the time frame for the Department to act in conducting an audit and assessing a deficiency was greatly curtailed by the enactment of 2014 PA 3. Our hypothetical situation posed earlier as to tolling the limitations period under former MCL 205.27a, wherein a deficiency assessment would be timely nine years after the state tax return was filed, would produce a different result were a mere extension under 2014 PA 3 applied-the deficiency assessment in year nine would plainly be time-barred. In regard to the three plaintiffs, there were ongoing audits when 2014 PA 3 became effective and on September 30, 2014; the audits were not commenced after September 30, 2014. However, deficiency assessments were not issued until long after 2014 PA 3 took effect. The parties all agree that 2014 PA 3 was solely prospective. Plaintiffs' position is that because the deficiency assessments were not issued until after 2014 PA 3 became effective, the amended version of the statutes controls. And because the amendments incorporating MCL 205.21(6) and (7) in MCL 205.27a(3)(c) only concerned Department audits commenced after September 30, 2014, and were silent regarding earlier or ongoing audits, the expired four-year limitations period governed, absent any extension or tolling whatsoever . Plaintiffs posit that the absence of a pertinent savings clause in 2014 PA 3, i.e., a provision that specifically retained the tolling component of former MCL 205.27a(3) in regard to audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, demonstrated a legislative intent to have a straightforward, unalterable application of the four-year period of limitations regardless of such audits. The Department contends that tax-related proceedings were already pending when 2014 PA 3 became effective, with audits fully underway; therefore, prospective application of the amended version of MCL 205.27a would not inure to the three tax disputes, leaving the audits subject to the former version of the statute and the tolling of the limitations period. The Court of Claims agreed with the Department and granted summary disposition in favor of the Department with respect to all three plaintiffs. Ultimately, the crux of the tax dispute concerns the treatment of audits that were ongoing on September 30, 2014, and whether those audits tolled, extended, or, as according to plaintiffs, had no effect on the running of the four-year limitations period. It is clear that extensions of the limitations period do not apply in these cases, given that extensions are only applicable for Department audits commenced after September 30, 2014. MCL 205.27a(3)(c) ; MCL 205.21(6). Thus, the question is narrowed to whether there was tolling, which answer requires a determination of the import of the Legislature's silence in 2014 PA 3 with respect to audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014. Did the silence reflect a legislative intent to continue to allow for the application of tolling to the four-year limitations period if an audit had been commenced on or before September 30, 2014, or did the silence reveal a legislative intent to do away with tolling altogether, even in regard to earlier or ongoing audits. Plaintiffs argue that by operation of law through the amendment process the tolling provision found in former MCL 205.27a(3)(a) was repealed by 2014 PA 3, and absent a specific savings clause in 2014 PA 3 that would allow for tolling relative to audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, which was not included, there could be no tolling. Stated otherwise, plaintiffs' stance concerning the Legislature's silence in 2014 PA 3 with respect to earlier or ongoing audits is that the silence effectively discontinued tolling in all cases. In support of their position, plaintiffs cite Lahti v. Fosterling , 357 Mich. 578, 99 N.W.2d 490 (1959), and People v. Lowell , 250 Mich. 349, 230 N.W. 202 (1930). In Lahti , 357 Mich. at 587-588, 99 N.W.2d 490, our Supreme Court, quoting Lowell , 250 Mich. at 354-356, 230 N.W. 202, explained: An amendatory act has a repealing force, by the mechanics of legislation, different from that of an independent statute. Repugnancy is not the essential element of implied repeal of specifically amended sections. The rule is: Where a section of a statute is amended, the original ceases to exist, and the section as amended supersedes it and becomes a part of the statute for all intents and purposes as if the amendments had always been there. * * * ...[T]he old section is deemed stricken from the law, and the provisions carried over have their force from the new act, not from the former. It is plain from the authorities in this state and elsewhere that the effect of an act amending a specific section of a former act, in the absence of a saving clause, is to strike the former section from the law, obliterate it entirely, and substitute the new section in its place. This effect is not an arbitrary rule adopted by the courts. It is the natural and logical effect of an amendment ''to read as follows.'' It accomplishes precisely what the words import. Any other construction would do violence to the plain language of the legislature. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] We do not find Lowell or Lahti to be particularly helpful. Under 2014 PA 3, it is quite clear that the Legislature was intent on repealing the tolling provision applicable to Department audits, with the goal of striking and obliterating it entirely and substituting a limited "extension" provision in its place. However, it is equally as clear that the Legislature was proceeding in this manner only in regard to particular audits, i.e., audits commenced after September 30, 2014. The Legislature's decision in 2014 PA 3 to allow for audit-based extensions of the four-year limitations period was prospective only, expressly so, applying even later than the February 2014 date that 2014 PA 3 generally took effect. It absolutely cannot be ascertained from reading 2014 PA 3 that the Legislature was instantly repealing all tolling connected to Department audits, but only that it was eventually repealing or disallowing all tolling. Indeed, the necessary corollary of providing for extensions of the limitations period with respect to audits commenced by the Department after September 30, 2014, is that audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, would remain subject to tolling. In Davis v. State Employees' Retirement Bd , 272 Mich.App. 151, 162-163, 725 N.W.2d 56 (2006), this Court observed that "[t]he principle that statutes of limitations are to be applied prospectively parallels an accompanying well-accepted principle that the pertinent statute of limitations is the one in effect when the plaintiff's cause of action arose." (Quotation marks and brackets omitted.) Although we are not addressing a direct change in the four-year limitations period, we are confronted with an audit tolling provision that affected and altered the length of the limitations period and a change in that tolling language to now provide solely for extensions of the limitations period. Effectively, 2014 PA 3 established a change in the statute of limitations in regard to deficiency assessments entailing underlying audits. And while we are not concerned with a cause of action, an appropriate analogy in the context of these cases is that the law shaping and affecting the length of the limitations period is the law in effect when audits were commenced. "The Legislature is presumed to be familiar with the rules of statutory construction and, when promulgating new laws, to be aware of the consequences of its use or omission of statutory language, and to have considered the effect of new laws on all existing laws[.]" In re MKK , 286 Mich.App. 546, 556, 781 N.W.2d 132 (2009) (citations omitted). Considering the presumption that the Legislature was familiar with the rules of statutory construction when enacting 2014 PA 3 and that a well-accepted principle is that the controlling limitations period is the one in effect at the pertinent point in time, we conclude that the legislative silence regarding cases involving audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, simply reflected an intent to allow tolling in those cases consistently with former MCL 205.27a(3)(a). Moreover, in our view, it would defy logic to conclude that the Legislature intended to provide for no tolling or extension of the limitations period in regard to audits commenced on or before September 30, 2014, given that former and current MCL 205.27a(3) plainly reflect a legislative mindset that an audit should potentially have some type of effect on the running of the statute of limitations, allowing for a greater period than four years to assess a deficiency. And the Legislature did not express that pending or earlier audits no longer allowed for tolling, nor did the Legislature indicate that the four-year limitations period inflexibly applied regardless of pending or earlier audits. Reversal is unwarranted. In sum, we affirm the rulings of the Court of Claims that granted summary disposition in favor of the Department in all three tax cases. Affirmed. Having fully prevailed on appeal, the Department is awarded taxable costs under MCR 7.219. Jansen and Shapiro, JJ., concurred with Murphy, P.J. Although the Legislature employed the word "suspended" in former MCL 205.27a(3) relative to the running of the statute of limitations, we shall speak in terms of "tolling" the limitations period, given that the terms are effectively interchangeable in the context of the statute. However, as explained later in this opinion, an "extension" of the limitations period is not the same as suspending or tolling the period. This latter reference clearly pertains to the extension described in MCL 205.27a(3)(a) that is based on federal income tax proceedings, such as an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit. MCL 205.21(7) subsequently underwent some minor modifications pursuant to 2017 PA 215 that are not pertinent to these appeals; MCL 205.21(6) remains unchanged, see 2014 PA 35 and 2017 PA 215. As can be seen by examining the current language regarding extensions based on federal income tax proceedings, including an IRS audit, MCL 205.27a(3)(a), those extensions are not limited like MCL 205.21(6), allowing for consideration of, for example, the full length of a federal audit, plus one year, even if not completed within five years. We also note that "there exists a plethora of cases extending over 100 years of jurisprudence that provide that statutes of limitations enacted by the Legislature are to be applied prospectively absent a clear and unequivocal manifestation of a legislative preference for retroactive application." Davis v. State Employees' Retirement Bd , 272 Mich.App. 151, 160-161, 725 N.W.2d 56 (2006). We note that the Department argues that plaintiffs are effectively asking for retroactive application of 2014 PA 3, but this is not an accurate characterization of plaintiffs' position. Retroactive application would entail applying the new audit extension provision to the limitations period; however, as indicated, plaintiffs contend that the four-year limitations period controls without any deviation for tolling or extension. We note that because the dispute is necessarily couched in terms of audits commenced by the Department and whether the Department is entitled to the benefit of tolling in relationship to the audits and assessing tax deficiencies, we see no reason to address principles regarding due process or vested rights. We note that in Davis , 272 Mich. App. at 163, 725 N.W.2d 56, the Court applied this principle, even though the panel was "not speaking directly of a cause of action, but of petitioner's right to nonduty disability retirement benefits under the applicable statutes."

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.

Per Curiam. In Docket No. 334732, respondent, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), appeals as of right a protective order entered by the St. Clair County Probate Court, which ordered that all of Joseph Vansach, Jr.'s income be paid to his wife, Ramona Fenner-Vansach, for the rest of Joseph's life. In Docket No. 336267, the DHHS appeals a similar protective order, entered by the Eaton County Probate Court, directing that all income of Jerome R. Bockes be paid to his wife, Beverly Fay Bockes. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that a probate court has the authority to enter a protective order providing support for a community spouse whose institutionalized spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits. However, we also conclude that a probate court's authority to enter such support orders under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq ., does not include the power to enter an order preserving the community spouse's standard of living without consideration of the institutionalized spouse's needs and his or her patient-pay obligations under Medicaid. Given that the orders in these cases were entered without considering Joseph's and Jerome's needs and their patient-pay obligations under Medicaid, we conclude that the probate courts abused their discretion by entering the orders at issue. We therefore vacate both support orders and remand for reconsideration of Beverly's and Ramona's need for support under the proper framework. Both Joseph and Jerome are institutionalized individuals who receive Medicaid benefits to cover part of the costs of their healthcare. Their respective spouses-Ramona and Beverly-sought protective support orders under EPIC, claiming that they lacked sufficient income to meet their needs and that they were entitled to financial support from Joseph and Jerome. The DHHS opposed the petitions, asserting that Ramona and Beverly actually sought a judicial determination that they were each entitled to a larger community-spouse monthly income allowance (CSMIA) under Medicaid, which would have the effect of decreasing the patient-pay amount that Joseph and Jerome contribute toward their care. According to the DHHS, the probate courts lacked the authority to make Medicaid determinations and to enter orders modifying the CSMIAs. Nevertheless, in each case, the probate court granted the petition and entered a support order requiring that 100% of the institutionalized spouse's monthly income be paid to the community spouse. The DHHS now appeals as of right in each case. Generally speaking, these consolidated appeals ask us to consider whether, and under what circumstances, a community spouse whose institutionalized spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits may obtain a support order under EPIC in light of the federal Medicaid statutes establishing CSMIAs. As a practical matter, a support order under EPIC may later be uses that order to obtain an increase in a community spouse's CSMIA and a corresponding decrease in the institutionalized spouse's patient-pay amount under Medicaid. Under Medicaid, there exists an administrative remedy for challenging the CSMIA, and the DHHS's basic position on appeal is that this administrative process is the sole avenue by which a community spouse may seek a modification of the CSMIA. Alternatively, assuming that the probate court has the authority to enter support orders with potential Medicaid implications, the DHHS argues that Ramona and Beverly failed to establish the necessary prerequisites for a support order under EPIC and that the probate courts abused their discretion by stripping Joseph and Jerome of all income so that Ramona and Beverly could maintain their current lifestyles. To provide context for our analysis of these issues, we begin with a brief overview of Medicaid's spousal-impoverishment provisions and the availability of a support order under EPIC. I. MEDICAID'S SPOUSAL-IMPOVERISHMENT PROVISIONS "The Medicaid program, 42 USC 1396 et seq., was established by Congress in 1965 as a cooperative federal-state program in which the federal government reimburses the state for a portion of the costs of medical care for needy individuals." Cook v. Dep't of Social Servs. , 225 Mich.App. 318, 320, 570 N.W.2d 684 (1997). "Participation in Medicaid is essentially need-based, with states setting specific eligibility requirements in compliance with broad mandates imposed by federal statutes and regulations." Mackey v. Dep't of Human Servs. , 289 Mich.App. 688, 693, 808 N.W.2d 484 (2010). "To be eligible for Medicaid long-term-care benefits in Michigan, an individual must meet a number of criteria, including having $2,000 or less in countable assets." Hegadorn v. Dep't of Human Servs. Dir. , 320 Mich.App. 549, 552-553, 904 N.W.2d 904 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted), lv. gtd. 501 Mich. 984, 907 N.W.2d 578 (2018). Even if eligible for benefits, Medicaid recipients have an obligation to contribute to the cost of their care to the extent that they are financially able as determined on the basis of post-eligibility calculations of income. See 42 USC 1396a(a)(17) ; 42 USC 1396r-5(d)(1) ; 42 CFR 435.725 ; Kent County v. Dep't of Social Servs. , 149 Mich.App. 749, 751-752, 386 N.W.2d 663 (1986). However, Medicaid, "with all of its complicated rules and regulations, has also become a legal quagmire that has resulted in the use of several 'loopholes' taken advantage of by wealthier individuals to obtain government-paid long-term care they otherwise could afford." Mackey , 289 Mich.App. at 693-694, 808 N.W.2d 484. The rules governing Medicaid are particularly complicated in cases involving married couples, who ''typically possess assets and income jointly and bear financial responsibility for each other...." Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Family Servs. v. Blumer , 534 U.S. 473, 479, 122 S.Ct. 962, 151 L.Ed.2d 935 (2002). Historically, because the income of both spouses and any jointly held assets were considered available to the institutionalized spouse for Medicaid purposes, "[m]any community spouses were left destitute by the drain on the couple's assets necessary to qualify the institutionalized spouse for Medicaid and by the diminution of the couple's income posteligibility to reduce the amount payable by Medicaid for institutional care." Id . at 480, 122 S.Ct. 962. However, in some cases, by titling assets solely in a community spouse's name, "couples with ample means could qualify for assistance when their assets were held solely in the community spouse's name." Id . Congress sought to address these problems with the enactment of the "spousal impoverishment" provisions of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), 42 USC 1396r-5. Blumer , 534 U.S. at 477, 480, 122 S.Ct. 962. Specifically, "Congress sought to protect community spouses from 'pauperization' while preventing financially secure couples from obtaining Medicaid assistance." Id . at 480, 122 S.Ct. 962. In other words, the basic goal of these spousal-impoverishment provisions was to assure that "the community spouse has a sufficient-but not excessive-amount of income and resources available." Id . (quotation marks and citation omitted). "To achieve this aim, Congress installed a set of intricate and interlocking requirements with which States must comply in allocating a couple's income and resources." Id . Relevant to the present case, in addition to other rules regarding the allocation of resources, Medicaid provides various rules for the allocation of income between spouses for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility as well as posteligibility income calculations that apply after an institutionalized spouse is "determined or redetermined" to be eligible for medical assistance. See § 1396r-5(b) and (d). Income allocation is governed by [ 42 USC 1396r-5(b) and (d). Covering any month in which "an institutionalized spouse is in the institution," § 1396r-5(b)(1) provides that "no income of the community spouse shall be deemed available to the institutionalized spouse." The community spouse's income is thus preserved for that spouse and does not affect the determination whether the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid. In general, such income is also disregarded in calculating the amount Medicaid will pay for the institutionalized spouse's care after eligibility is established. Other provisions specifically address income allocation in the period after the institutionalized spouse becomes Medicaid eligible. Section 1396r-5(b)(2)(A) prescribes, as a main rule, that if payment of income is made solely in the name of one spouse, that income is treated as available only to the named spouse (the "name-on-the-check" rule). Section 1396r-5(d) provides a number of exceptions to that main rule designed to ensure that the community spouse and other dependents have income sufficient to meet basic needs. Among the exceptions, § 1396r-5(d)(3) establishes for the community spouse a "minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance," or MMMNA. The MMMNA is calculated by multiplying the federal poverty level for a couple by a percentage set by the State. Since 1992, that percentage must be at least 150%, ... but the resulting MMMNA may not exceed $1,500 per month in 1988 dollars.... [ Blumer , 534 U.S. at 480-481, 122 S.Ct. 962.] In an effort to ensure that a community spouse has income that meets the MMMNA, Medicaid allows a community spouse to receive a CSMIA. Id . at 481-482, 122 S.Ct. 962. Ordinarily, the CSMIA is calculated as set forth in § 1396r-5(d)(2), which states: In this section (except as provided in paragraph (5) ), the "community spouse monthly income allowance" for a community spouse is an amount by which- (A) except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance (established under and in accordance with paragraph (3) ) for the spouse, exceeds (B) the amount of monthly income otherwise available to the community spouse (determined without regard to such an allowance). Essentially, under § 1396r-5(d)(2), if the community spouse's income is less than the amount of the MMMNA, the CSMIA equals the amount of the shortfall. If either spouse is dissatisfied with this calculation of the CSMIA, they may obtain an administrative hearing, § 1396r-5(e)(2)(A), and attempt to establish that the community spouse needs income above the MMMNA due to "exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress," § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B). Central to the present case, aside from the calculation of the CSMIA under § 1396r-5(d)(2), as an alternative method for determining the CSMIA is provided in § 1396r-5(d)(5) which states: "If a court has entered an order against an institutionalized spouse for monthly income for the support of the community spouse, the [CSMIA] for the spouse shall be not less than the amount of the monthly income so ordered." Ultimately, once the CSMIA has been determined, this amount is deducted from the institutionalized spouse's income and reallocated to the community spouse. Blumer , 534 U.S. at 481-482, 122 S.Ct. 962. See also § 1396r-5(d)(1)(B). "The provision for this allowance ensures that income transferred from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse to meet the latter's basic needs is not also considered available for the former's care. As a result, Medicaid will pay a greater portion of the institutionalized spouse's medical expenses than it would absent the CSMIA provision." Blumer , 534 U.S. at 482, 122 S.Ct. 962. II. SUPPORT ORDERS UNDER EPIC In Michigan, laws concerning the affairs of protected individuals and legally incapacitated individuals are set forth in EPIC. See MCL 700.1201(a). In particular, Article v. of EPIC, MCL 700.5101 et seq., contains statutes governing the protection of individuals under a disability. In re Brody Conservatorship , 321 Mich.App. 332, 336, 909 N.W.2d 849 (2017). Under EPIC, probate courts clearly have the authority to enter protective orders, including the authority to enter orders providing money for "those entitled" to support from the incapacitated individual. MCL 700.5401(3)(b). See also MCL 700.5402(a) and (b). As a prerequisite to appointing a conservator or entering other protective orders, the probate court must make a finding of "cause" as provided in MCL 700.5401. In relevant part, this provision states: (1) Upon petition and after notice and hearing in accordance with this part, the court may appoint a conservator or make another protective order for cause as provided in this section. * * * (3) The court may appoint a conservator or make another protective order in relation to an individual's estate and affairs if the court determines both of the following: (a) The individual is unable to manage property and business affairs effectively for reasons such as mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, confinement, detention by a foreign power, or disappearance. (b) The individual has property that will be wasted or dissipated unless proper management is provided, or money is needed for the individual's support, care, and welfare or for those entitled to the individual's support, and that protection is necessary to obtain or provide money. [ MCL 700.5401.] The prerequisites under this section must be established by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 700.5406(7) ; In re Bitttner Conservatorship , 312 Mich.App. 227, 237, 879 N.W.2d 269 (2015). If the prerequisites for a protective order are established by clear and convincing evidence, the standards applicable to the trial court in fashioning an order and exercising authority over the individual's property are set forth in MCL 700.5407 and MCL 700.5408. See Bittner , 312 Mich.App. at 237, 241-242, 879 N.W.2d 269. III. ANALYSIS With this basic understanding of Medicaid and EPIC in mind, we turn to the issues in the present cases-namely, whether a community spouse may seek a support order under EPIC to obtain income from an institutionalized spouse who is receiving Medicaid benefits and, if so, what prerequisite determinations must be made under EPIC to merit such an order. The DHHS challenges the propriety of such orders on a number of grounds, asserting (1) that the probate courts lack jurisdiction to enter support orders that will effectively result in a redetermination of the CSMIA, (2) that the probate courts' authority to enter support orders is preempted by federal law in cases involving an institutionalized spouse receiving Medicaid benefits, and (3) that the orders in these cases were entered without a proper showing of the prerequisites in MCL 700.5401(3)(b) for such an orders. We address each of these arguments in turn. A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal. Usitalo v. Landon , 299 Mich.App. 222, 228, 829 N.W.2d 359 (2013). Likewise, "[w]hether a federal statute preempts state law is a question of law that we review de novo." TerBeek v. City of Wyoming , 297 Mich.App. 446, 457, 823 N.W.2d 864 (2012), aff'd 495 Mich. 1, 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014). Questions of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Salem Springs, LLC v. Salem Twp. , 312 Mich.App. 210, 216, 880 N.W.2d 793 (2015). In comparison, "appeals from a probate court decision are on the record, not de novo." In re Temple Marital Trust , 278 Mich.App. 122, 128, 748 N.W.2d 265 (2008). We review a trial court's factual findings for clear error, In re Townsend Conservatorship , 293 Mich.App. 182, 186, 809 N.W.2d 424 (2011), while it's dispositional rulings, including a decision to enter a protective order, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see Bittner , 312 Mich.App. at 235-236, 879 N.W.2d 269. "A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding." Id . at 236, 879 N.W.2d 269 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Id . at 235, 879 N.W.2d 269. A trial court may also abuse its discretion by failing to operate within the correct legal framework. See People v. Kelly , 317 Mich.App. 637, 643, 895 N.W.2d 230 (2016). B. JURISDICTION On appeal, the DHHS first argues that the probate courts lack jurisdiction to enter protective orders in cases involving a community spouse's efforts to obtain additional income from an institutionalized spouse. The DHHS contends that such requests are in actuality a challenge to the CSMIA, and the DHHS asserts that the probate courts lack authority to make Medicaid determinations or to alter a community spouse's CSMIA. According to the DHHS, as the agency charged with administering Medicaid in Michigan, it has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to CSMIAs because those issues are subject to administrative proceedings under § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B). "Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns a court's abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending and is not dependent on the particular facts of a case." Harris v. Vernier , 242 Mich.App. 306, 319, 617 N.W.2d 764 (2000). When a state agency is "endowed with exclusive jurisdiction" over a matter, courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over those same areas. In re Harper , 302 Mich.App. 349, 353, 839 N.W.2d 44 (2013). Rather, an individual must exhaust any available administrative remedies before a court may exercise jurisdiction over the matter. Id . at 353, 356, 839 N.W.2d 44. As noted, when a community spouse is dissatisfied with the amount of the CSMIA, he or she may obtain an administrative hearing, § 1396r-5(e)(2)(A)(i ), and attempt to establish that he or she needs additional income ''due to exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress," § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B). As the agency charged with administering Medicaid in Michigan, the DHHS has the power "to hold and decide hearings." MCL 400.9. And an individual dissatisfied with the administrative results may seek judicial review in circuit court. MCL 400.37 ; MCL 24.303. Certainly, there are administrative remedies available under Medicaid to a community spouse who wishes to obtain additional income from an institutionalized spouse. However, contrary to the DHHS's arguments, the Medicaid provisions providing for administrative proceedings do not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the DHHS with regard to income allocation between spouses. Instead, the federal Medicaid statutes plainly acknowledge that courts may have jurisdiction to enter a support order and that this support order will affect the calculation of the CSMIA. In particular, the possibility of courts having jurisdiction is recognized in § 1396r-5(d)(5), which states that "[i]f a court has entered an order against an institutionalized spouse for monthly income for the support of the community spouse, the [CSMIA] for the spouse shall be not less than the amount of the monthly income so ordered." Like several of our sister states to have considered the meaning of § 1396r-5, we do not read this statute as conferring jurisdiction on any particular court or as requiring states to establish a judicial process for obtaining support orders as an alternative to the mandated administrative remedies. See Alford v. Mississippi Div. of Medicaid , 30 So.3d 1212, 1221 (Miss. 2010) (reiterating the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies and holding that the language of law does not confer parallel jurisdiction on state courts); Amos v. Estate of Amos , 267 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Mo.App. 2008) (concluding that the state agency has primary jurisdiction over initial eligibility determinations and that a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before a court has jurisdiction); Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Smith , 370 Ark. 490, 499, 262 S.W.3d 167 (2007) (holding that a state agency has sole authority over determining Medicaid eligibility and that courts may exercise jurisdiction after exhaustion of administrative remedies). However, by recognizing the possibility that a court may have entered an order of support, § 1396r-5(d)(5) acknowledges that there can be courts with jurisdiction to enter support orders; and by requiring the CSMIA to be calculated based on these court support orders, § 1396r-5(d)(5) makes plain that Medicaid did not establish administrative remedies as the sole means of relief or abolish any court's jurisdiction to enter a support order. See MEF v. ABF , 393 N.J.Super. 543, 555-556, 925 A.2d 12 (2007) ; In re Tyler Estate , unpublished order of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, entered May 30, 2002 (Docket No. 246-00), 2002 WL 1274125, pp. 2-3, 6 ; Gomprecht v. Gomprecht , 86 N.Y.2d 47, 52, 629 N.Y.S.2d 190, 652 N.E.2d 936 (1995). The relief available in the judicial forum "is uniquely dependent on the state laws that intersect with the federal Medicaid statute." Valliere v. Comm'r of Social Servs. , 328 Conn. 294, 320, 178 A.3d 346 (2018). In short, the statutory language governing Medicaid does not create an exclusive administrative remedy; rather, it acknowledges the possibility of judicial spousal-support orders, and the question whether a court has jurisdiction turns on the court's authority to enter support orders under state law. In this case, the basic question thus becomes whether probate courts in Michigan have jurisdiction to enter an order of support requiring payment of one spouse's income to another. "Probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," and their jurisdiction is defined "entirely by statute." In re Geror , 286 Mich.App. 132, 133, 779 N.W.2d 316 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Const. 1963, art. 6, § 15. The probate court's jurisdiction to enter an order of support in a case involving a protected individual is established by EPIC. Pursuant to MCL 700.5402 : After the service of notice in a proceeding seeking a conservator's appointment or other protective order and until the proceeding's termination, the court in which the petition is filed has the following jurisdiction: (a) Exclusive jurisdiction to determine the need for a conservator or other protective order until the proceeding is terminated. (b) Exclusive jurisdiction to determine how the protected individual's estate that is subject to the laws of this state is managed, expended, or distributed to or for the use of the protected individual or any of the protected individual's dependents or other claimants. Under these provisions, the probate courts clearly have subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a protective order directing the distribution of a protected individual's income ''to or for the use of ... any of the protected individual's dependents or other claimants." MCL 700.5402(b). Accordingly, the DHHS's jurisdictional arguments are without merit. C. PREEMPTION Next, contrary to the DHHS's arguments, Medicaid and the spousal-impoverishment provisions do not preempt EPIC's provisions allowing probate courts to enter support orders. "The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to preempt state laws." Packowski v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 951 , 289 Mich.App. 132, 139, 796 N.W.2d 94 (2010). "There are three types of federal preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption." Id . at 140, 796 N.W.2d 94. In this case, the DHHS claims that there exists conflict preemption, specifically "obstacle conflict preemption," which occurs "when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Ter Beek , 297 Mich.App. at 458, 823 N.W.2d 864 (quotation marks and citation omitted). According to the DHHS, the probate court's authority under EPIC to enter support orders for a community spouse eviscerates the intent of the spousal-impoverishment provisions of § 1396r-5. To determine whether EPIC stands as an obstacle to the full accomplishment of the spousal-impoverishment provisions, we begin by considering Congress's purposes and objectives. Ter Beek , 297 Mich.App. at 460, 823 N.W.2d 864. As noted, by enacting the spousal-impoverishment provisions, Congress sought to ensure that community spouses had sufficient, but not excessive, income and resources; that is, Congress sought to prevent community spouses from being pauperized while also preventing financially secure couples from obtaining Medicaid assistance. Blumer , 534 U.S. at 480, 122 S.Ct. 962. These purposes are accomplished through the spousal-impoverishment statutes that provide "intricate and interlocking requirements" for allocating a couple's income and resources. Id . Notably, as discussed, one of the statutes enacted by Congress was § 1396r-5(d)(5), which expressly recognizes that "[i]f a court has entered an order against an institutionalized spouse for monthly income for the support of the community spouse, the [CSMIA] for the spouse shall be not less than the amount of the monthly income so ordered." By enacting this provision, Congress specifically provided that a state court's order can affect the amount of an individual's CSMIA, and thus we can only conclude that EPIC's provisions allowing the probate court to enter support orders are consistent with Congress's objectives and purposes in enacting Medicaid and the spousal-impoverishment provisions. Accordingly, EPIC does not constitute an obstacle to the full accomplishment of Medicaid and the spousal-impoverishment provisions. The DHHS's obstacle-conflict-preemption arguments are without merit. D. STANDARDS FOR SUPPORT ORDERS UNDER EPIC Finally, having determined that probate courts generally have authority under EPIC to enter orders to provide support for community spouses, we turn to the DHHS's argument that the orders in these cases were improperly entered because Ramona and Beverly failed to establish the prerequisites under MCL 700.5401(3)(b) by clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the DHHS argues that Ramona and Beverly failed to show that they need money for their support, and the DHHS asserts that they cannot show a need for money given that the CSMIA is designed to ensure that they have sufficient income. According to the DHHS, the probate courts abused their discretion by using support orders to bypass Medicaid's requirements and by failing to acknowledge that Joseph and Jerome need their incomes to meet their existing patient-pay obligations under Medicaid. Although we have determined that the probate courts have the authority under EPIC to enter orders to provide support for community spouses whose spouses are institutionalized and receiving Medicaid benefits, that authority is constrained by the standards in EPIC. Thus, to determine the probate court's authority we begin with EPIC's statutory language. As noted, under a probate court may enter a protective order if the court determines that both of the following have been shown by clear and convincing evidence: (a) The individual is unable to manage property and business affairs effectively for reasons such as mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, confinement, detention by a foreign power, or disappearance. (b) The individual has property that will be wasted or dissipated unless proper management is provided, or money is needed for the individual's support, care, and welfare or for those entitled to the individual's support, and that protection is necessary to obtain or provide money. [ MCL 700.5401(3). See also Bittner , 312 Mich.App. at 237, 879 N.W.2d 269.] There can be no legitimate dispute that Subdivision (a) has been shown with respect to Joseph and Jerome. Both men are institutionalized individuals suffering from dementia, and they are unable to manage their own affairs. The real issue in this case relates to Subdivision (b). The relevant language of MCL 700.5401(3)(b) makes clear that a protective order can be entered when money is "needed" for someone "entitled to the individual's support," provided that the entry of a protective order is "necessary to obtain or provide money." Plainly, to warrant a protective order under this provision, there must be a showing of need. That is, there must be a showing that money is necessary or required. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) (defining ''need''). Further, the person claiming a need must be someone "entitled to the [incapacitated] individual's support." In general, married persons are entitled to support from their spouses. See MCL 750.161. Consequently, on a proper showing, a probate court may authorize funds for the support of a protected individual's spouse. See In re Buckley's Estate , 330 Mich. 102, 108, 47 N.W.2d 33 (1951). In considering whether money is "needed" for the "support" to which a spouse is "entitled," we acknowledge that the duty to support a spouse is not discharged "by furnishing only enough money to buy sufficient food to keep body and soul together." People v. Beckman , 239 Mich. 590, 592, 214 N.W. 950 (1927). We are not, therefore, suggesting that a showing of need under MCL 700.5401(3)(b) requires a determination that the spouse requesting support lacks even the basic necessities of life. However, we emphasize that an entitlement to support does not necessarily guarantee that a spouse may enjoy a particular standard of living regardless of the protected individual's means and circumstances. To the contrary, in Michigan, the obligation to support a spouse is contingent on the assumption that the spouse providing support has sufficient financial ability to provide that assistance. See MCL 750.161 ; Szatynski v. Szatynski , 327 Mich. 613, 617, 42 N.W.2d 758 (1950) ("[B]ecause of his marital obligation, the duty is upon defendant husband to furnish to the extent of his ability a home and other needs for plaintiff." (emphasis added). And the level of "support" required is generally recognized as being that which is "reasonably consistent" with the supporting spouse's "own means and station." Root v. Root , 164 Mich. 638, 645, 130 N.W. 194 (1911). In other words, it cannot reasonably be expected that one spouse should become impoverished in order for the other spouse to maintain his or her standard of living. See Myland v. Myland , 290 Mich.App. 691, 695, 804 N.W.2d 124 (2010) (reviewing spousal support award in an appeal from divorce judgment). In the context of a petition for a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3)(b), it follows that a finding that money is needed for a spouse entitled to support from the protected individual requires consideration of the requesting spouse's needs and resources as well as the protected individual's needs and circumstances. The spouse requesting support must make a showing of need-not merely a desire to maintain a current standard of living without regard to the other spouse's circumstances. Whether the community spouse is "entitled" to "support" will depend on all the facts and circumstances, including the incapacitated individual's financial means and ability to provide assistance. For instance, when crafting a protective order, the probate court should consider the protected individual's "foreseeable needs," the interests of the protected individual's creditors, and the interests of the protected individual's dependents. See MCL 700.5408. A probate court considering a protective order should also bear in mind that the protected individual has the right to acquire, enjoy, and dispose of his or her own property. Bittner , 312 Mich.App. at 242, 879 N.W.2d 269. Weighing the various concerns will obviously depend on the facts of each case, but a protected individual's rights and interests can never be totally disregarded in an effort to provide for his or her spouse. In other words, a community spouse cannot make a showing of "need" and is not "entitled to the [incapacitated] individual's support" merely to maintain his or her current lifestyle when providing money to the spouse will leave the incapacitated individual entirely destitute and unable to meet his or her own needs. In cases in which an institutionalized spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits, weighing both spouses' needs and circumstances requires consideration of those needs and circumstances as they actually exist under Medicaid. See Gomprecht , 86 N.Y.2d at 52, 629 N.Y.S.2d 190, 652 N.E.2d 936 ("The fact that one spouse is institutionalized at the public expense is a factor to be considered."); MEF , 393 N.J. Super. at 558, 925 A.2d 12 (recognizing that Medicaid's aims are certainly relevant considerations-"to ensure that the community spouse has sufficient, but not excessive, income and to ensure that individuals not be permitted to avoid payment of their own fair share for long-term care"); Tyler , unpub. order at 11 (concluding that a court support order could not be entered "without regard to the Federal Medicaid Statute"). See also In re Johnson's Estate , 286 Mich. 213, 223, 281 N.W. 597 (1938) (recognizing that whether the action would leave an incompetent individual as a "public charge" is relevant in an action regarding the individual's property). Consequently, along with any other relevant facts and circumstances, probate courts must consider the CSMIA and any other resources available to the community spouse, the community spouse's "need" for additional support beyond the CSMIA, and the institutionalized spouse's need for income to meet the patient-pay amount related to his or her medical care under Medicaid. Importantly, a probate court's consideration of the couple's circumstances in light of Medicaid cannot involve a fallacious assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. In actuality, Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care. See Mackey , 289 Mich.App. at 693, 808 N.W.2d 484. The unfortunate reality is that medical costs and increased expenses related to illness may affect both spouses, see Mathews v. De Castro , 429 U.S. 181, 188, 97 S.Ct. 431, 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976), and even with the enactment of the spousal-impoverishment provisions, Medicaid provides no guarantee that a community spouse will enjoy "the same standard of living-even if reasonable rather than lavish by some lights-that he or she enjoyed before the institutionalized spouse entered a nursing home." Balzarini v. Suffolk County Dep't of Social Servs. , 16 N.Y.3d 135, 144, 919 N.Y.S.2d 474, 944 N.E.2d 1113 (2011). "The trade-off for a married couple, of course, is that the institutionalized spouse's costly nursing home care is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer...." Id . Having made this trade-off, a community spouse is not entitled to have the probate court simply disregard Medicaid, ignore the institutionalized spouse's patient-pay amount, and impoverish the institutionalized spouse in order that the community spouse may maintain his or her standard of living without regard for the institutionalized spouse's needs and circumstances as they exist under Medicaid. Such a procedure is not contemplated by EPIC, and it is a gross misapplication of the probate court's authority to enter an order when money is "needed" for "those entitled to the [incapacitated] individual's support." See MCL 700.5401(3)(b) (emphasis added). Instead, the actual Medicaid-related realities facing the couple-all of Medicaid's pros and cons-become part of the facts and circumstances that the probate court when considering must consider whether to enter a support order for a community spouse under MCL 700.5401(3)(b). Ultimately, when a community spouse's institutionalized spouse receives Medicaid benefits and has a patient-pay amount, the community spouse seeking a support order under EPIC must show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she needs money and is entitled to the institutionalized spouse's support despite the CSMIA provided under Medicaid and the institutionalized individual's patient-pay amount under Medicaid. IV. APPLICATION In both cases before us the probate courts entered orders awarding the community spouses 100% of the institutionalized spouses' monthly income, thereby leaving the institutionalized spouses destitute. These orders were entered to preserve the community spouses' standard of living without a consideration of the institutionalized spouses' needs and circumstances in light of Medicaid. In particular, in Docket No. 334732, the probate court applied a standard of "reasonableness," concluding that Ramona had demonstrated a "need for support" from Joseph because she had submitted a budget and none of her requests was "unreasonable." The trial court considered only Ramona's requests, and failed to weigh Joseph's needs and his existing patient-pay obligations. Indeed, the court disregarded the DHHS's Medicaid calculations, opining that these calculations did not affect the court's ability to enter a support order and that the DHHS's determinations were "not applicable" to the court's order; rather, the court's order would be applicable to the DHHS's future determinations. Quite simply, the trial court misunderstood the significance of Medicaid in this context, proceeding on the assumption that the probate court had authority to grant any "reasonable" request for support without considering the institutionalized spouse's needs and patient-pay amount. As a result, the probate court operated within the wrong legal framework by failing to determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ramona needed money-not simply wanted it-and whether she was entitled to Joseph's support despite the CSMIA provided under Medicaid and despite Joseph's patient-pay amount under Medicaid. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Ramona receive additional support from Joseph because Joseph would be impoverished as a result. Likewise, in Docket No. 336267, the probate court determined that Beverly needed support from Jerome. The court concluded that Beverly and Jerome were "not rich people" and that Beverly's request for income was "to maintain where she was" in terms of her standard of living. The court opined that EPIC provided the authority to provide support for Beverly "to maintain what they [had] without impoverishing [Beverly]...." However, missing from the probate court's analysis is an account of Jerome's needs and, in particular, a careful consideration of his patient-pay amount under Medicaid. As discussed, EPIC does not provide blanket authority to maintain a community spouse's standard of living without regard for the incapacitated spouse's needs and circumstances, which in this case included a patient-pay amount because Jerome was a Medicaid recipient. The unfortunate reality is that both spouses may feel the financial effects of a spouse's institutionalization. However, a support order under EPIC cannot be used to impoverish an institutionalized spouse as an end-run around Medicaid. Rather, there should have been a determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that Beverly needed money-not simply wanted it-and that she was entitled to Jerome's support despite the CSMIA provided under Medicaid and Jerome's patient-pay obligations under Medicaid. By failing to operate within the correct framework and appropriately consider Jerome's needs as well as Beverly's, the court abused its discretion by entering an order that rendered Jerome destitute in order to maintain Beverly's standard of living. V. CONCLUSION In sum, probate courts have authority to enter orders requiring an institutionalized spouse to provide support for a community spouse. However, EPIC does not give probate courts unfettered discretion to enter an order allowing the community spouse to maintain his or her current lifestyle without regard to the institutionalized spouse's needs and patient-pay obligations. In the cases before us, rather than consider the couples' needs and circumstances as they existed in light of Medicaid, the probate courts disregarded the patient-pay amounts and impoverished the institutionalized spouses so that the community spouses could maintain their standards of living. By failing to properly consider the implications of Medicaid in relation to the spouses' respective needs and circumstances, the probate courts operated under the wrong legal framework and abused their discretion. Protective orders vacated and cases remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. O'Connell, P.J., and Hoekstra and K. F. Kelly, JJ., concurred. The appeals have been consolidated "to advance the efficient administration of the appellate process." In re Joseph Vansach Jr. , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 12, 2017 (Docket Nos. 334732 and 336267). Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 1396 et seq ., is commonly referred to as the Medicaid act. Mackey v. Dep't of Human Servs. , 289 Mich.App. 688, 693, 808 N.W.2d 484 (2010). In the Medicaid context, and as used in this opinion, the term "community spouse" refers to a spouse living at home, while the term "institutionalized spouse" refers to a spouse who has been institutionalized, usually in a nursing home. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Family Servs. v. Blumer , 534 U.S. 473, 478, 122 S.Ct. 962, 151 L.Ed.2d 935 (2002). 42 USC 1396r-5(d)(2). In Michigan, Medicaid is administered by the DHHS. See MCL 400.105 ; MCL 400.227. A "protected individual" is a "minor or other individual for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made...." MCL 700.1106(w ). " 'Incapacitated individual' means an individual who is impaired by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, or other cause, not including minority, to the extent of lacking sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate informed decisions." MCL 700.1105(a). In this context, the term " '[d]isability' means cause for a protective order as described in [MCL 700.5401 ].'' MCL 700.1103(n). Although not binding on this Court, caselaw from sister states may be considered as persuasive authority. Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp. , 281 Mich.App. 184, 221 n. 6, 761 N.W.2d 293 (2008). See also Tyler , unpub. order at 9; Jenkins v. Fields , unpublished opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued May 1, 1996, 1996 WL 221614 (Docket No. 95 CIV. 9603). Although Jenkins is a lower federal court decision, such decisions may be persuasive even though they are not binding on state courts. Abela v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 469 Mich. 603, 607, 677 N.W.2d 325 (2004). To be clear, the probate court's authority in this context extends to entering support orders under EPIC; the probate court cannot actually alter a CSMIA or modify Medicaid patient-pay amounts. Admittedly, it may often be true that a community spouse seeking a support order to obtain income from an institutionalized spouse might well intend to use the probate court's support order to obtain a redetermination of the CSMIA under § 1396r-5(d)(5). See Schaltz & Mall, Probate Court Orders and Medicaid Community Spouse Allowances: The Elder Law Practitioner's Perspective (Annual Michigan Judicial Conference, October 2015). However, the practical Medicaid implications of entering a support order under EPIC in favor of a community spouse do not divest a probate court of jurisdiction to consider a request for a protective support order under MCL 700.5402. Indeed, as discussed, § 1396r-5(d)(5) contemplates the use of court support orders for calculation of the CSMIA. Indeed, if the use of state court support orders for the calculation of CSMIAs is inconsistent with the overarching goals of Medicaid and the spousal impoverishment provisions, Congress created the inconsistency, and it is certainly not our role to ignore the text of the Medicaid statutes or to "create rules based on our own sense of the ultimate purpose of the law being interpreted...." James v. Richman , 547 F.3d 214, 219 (C.A.3 2008). On appeal, Ramona and Beverly argue that the DHHS waived the ability to challenge the evidence supporting their requests for additional income because the DHHS did not seek to present evidence in the probate courts. Such an argument improperly attempts to shift the burden of proof to the DHHS and incorrectly assumes that the DHHS had some obligation to present evidence. In actuality, Ramona and Beverly bore the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to warrant the issuance of a protective order. See MCL 700.5406(7). Moreover, while the DHHS did not challenge the accuracy of Ramona's and Beverly's budgets, the DHHS plainly challenged whether they had shown that support orders should be entered, emphasizing, for example, that what Ramona might "like" to have is not necessarily the same as what she needed. More generally, in both cases, the DHHS contested the propriety of entering support orders so that Ramona and Beverly could maintain their lifestyles at taxpayer expense while Jerome and Joseph received Medicaid benefits. The DHHS has by no means waived its ability to contest whether support orders were merited under EPIC based on the evidence presented by Ramona and Beverly. Joseph has a conservator, and Beverly manages Jerome's affairs under a power of attorney. Based on the conservatorship and the power of attorney, the DHHS argues that, under Bittner , 312 Mich.App. at 243, 879 N.W.2d 269, the requirements in MCL 700.5401(3)(a) have not been shown because Joseph and Jerome are essentially managing their financial affairs through others. This argument is without merit. In Bittner , the protected individual suffered from "irksome attendants to the aging process," such as difficulties with math and memory, and she compensated for these shortcomings by granting her daughter a durable power of attorney so that her daughter could assist her in managing her financial affairs. Id . at 239, 243, 879 N.W.2d 269. On these facts, this Court reversed the appointment of a full conservatorship and held that someone capable of managing his or her affairs with assistance did not necessarily need a full conservatorship; rather, the court should have considered whether arrangements less intrusive than a full conservatorship would have sufficed to protect the individual's property. Id . at 242-243, 879 N.W.2d 269. In contrast to Bittner , Joseph and Jerome are not managing their affairs with assistance; instead, someone else is managing their affairs because they are unable to do so. On appeal, the DHHS asserts that a court order is not "necessary to obtain or provide money" if there is a conservator or someone with a power of attorney who could authorize transfers of money to a spouse. Such an argument ignores the practical reality that such transfers cannot or will not be made when the institutionalized spouse's income is needed to meet his patient-pay amount. Unlike a conservator or someone with a power of attorney, as we have discussed, the probate court may enter an order of support despite the existing Medicaid calculations. In this regard, a probate court protective order can be "necessary to obtain or provide money." We emphasize that the petitions in this case were made after the initial Medicaid determinations had been made and the petitions were premised on the assertion that additional income was needed to "support" Beverly and Ramona, presumably because § 1396r-5(d)(5) recognizes court orders "for the support of the community spouse." Thus, our analysis is focused on the issuance of orders for support under EPIC after an initial Medicaid eligibility determination has been made; we are not concerned with gift-giving beyond what is needed for support, or other attempts to use protective proceedings, before the initial Medicaid determination for Medicaid-planning purposes. See, e.g., In re Shah , 95 N.Y.2d 148, 159-162, 711 N.Y.S.2d 824, 733 N.E.2d 1093 (2000) ; Valliere , 328 Conn. at 323-324, 178 A.3d 346 ; Matter of Labis , 314 N.J. Super. 140, 147-149, 714 A.2d 335 (1998). In the circumstances before us, a Medicaid determination has already been made and the petitions involve requests for additional "support." As noted earlier, the probate court's jurisdiction under EPIC does not extend to actually modifying the CSMIA or changing the patient-pay amount under Medicaid. Section 1396r-5(d)(5) recognizes that if a court "has entered" an order of support, the CSMIA cannot be less than the amount ordered by the court. However, this use of the order to change the CSMIA and thereby reduce the patient-pay amount is within the purview of the DHHS, not the probate court. When entering an order under EPIC, the probate court is bound by the existing Medicaid calculations, and the question before the probate court is whether-despite the existing circumstances, including the institutionalized spouse's patient-pay amount-money is "needed" to provide the community spouse with additional income to which he or she is "entitled" for "support." See MCL 700.5401(3)(b). Some states have chosen to impose the administrative "exceptional circumstances" standard on this judicial determination, requiring the community spouse to show "exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress" to obtain a support order for income from the institutionalized spouse. See, e.g., Gomprecht , 86 N.Y.2d at 52, 629 N.Y.S.2d 190, 652 N.E.2d 936 ; Va. Code Ann. 20-88.02:1(A)(2) ; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 123.259(3)(b)(4). This language does not appear in EPIC, nor does § 1396r-5(d)(5) state that courts are required to use this standard. See Tyler , unpub. order at 9. Thus, despite the DHHS's assertion that such a standard should apply to any request for additional income by the community spouse, we will not read into EPIC or § 1396r-5(d)(5) language that does not appear there. If the DHHS wishes for this standard to apply in judicial proceedings, its only recourse is to seek legislative action implementing such a standard. See, e.g., Valliere , 328 Conn. at 325 & n. 26, 178 A.3d 346. Nevertheless, we note that, as a matter of common sense, when an incapacitated person needs to be institutionalized to receive full-time medical care, it would be an unusual case for the community spouse's circumstances to trump the institutionalized spouse's need for use of his or her income to pay the medical expenses, particularly when the community spouse has the benefit of the CSMIA. In other words, an institutionalized spouse's receipt of Medicaid and a community spouse's protection under the spousal impoverishment provisions generally weigh against the entry of a support order. We note that the issue before us is the propriety of the probate courts entering supports order under EPIC. Questions regarding how those orders are used by the DHHS under § 1396r-5(d)(5) and whether the DHHS is obligated to honor those orders when redetermining Medicaid eligibility are not before us at this time. See MEF , 393 N.J. Super. at 554-555, 557, 925 A.2d 12.

Upon de novo review by the entire Court in accordance with MCR 2.003(D)(2)(b), the Court orders that the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to disqualify Justice David F. Viviano from participating in the decision of this case is DENIED for the reason that no justice is persuaded that there is any ground for the disqualification of Justice Viviano. VIVIANO , J., did not participate in the decision because he is the subject of the disqualification motion. CAVANAGH , J., is not participating in the case, including the motion to disqualify, because the case was argued before she assumed office.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 5, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. VIVIANO , J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

Hoekstra, J. Defendant has been charged with open murder, MCL 750.316, discharge of a firearm in a building, MCL 750.234b, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements she made to police based on the contention that the police failed to adequately advise her of her rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The trial court granted defendant's motion. The prosecution filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal in this Court, which we denied. The prosecution then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, and in lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court remanded to this Court for consideration as on leave granted, specifically instructing this Court "to consider whether either of the bases for suppression advanced by the defendant in the trial court rendered the warnings in this case deficient" under Miranda . People v. Mathews , 501 Mich. 950, 950, 904 N.W.2d 865 (2018). On remand, we find no merit to defendant's assertion that the police were required to inform her that she could cut off questioning at any time during the interrogation. However, because generally advising defendant that she had "a right to a lawyer" did not sufficiently convey her right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation, we conclude that the Miranda warnings in this case were defective and affirm the trial court's suppression of defendant's statement. This case arises from the shooting death of defendant's boyfriend, Gabriel Dumas, who was killed in defendant's apartment on August 12, 2016. After the shooting, defendant called 911 and told the dispatcher that she had shot Dumas. Police responded to the scene, and defendant was taken into custody and transported to the Wixom Police Department. At the police station, defendant was interviewed twice. Detective Brian Stowinsky conducted the first interview. During the first interview, Stowinsky presented defendant with a written advice-of-rights form, which stated: Before any questions are asked of you, you should know: (1) you have a right to remain silent; (2) anything you say may be used against you; (3) you have a right to a lawyer, and (4) if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided free. I understand what my rights are and am willing to talk. Stowinsky also orally reviewed the statements on the advice-of-rights form with defendant. Specifically, the following exchange took place: [Detective Stowinsky]: Ok, um, I'm going to review these, ok? [Defendant]: Uh hmm. [Detective Stowinsky]: I'm going to read these to you. [Defendant]: Uh hmm. [Detective Stowinsky]: Um, before I question, start asking you, you should know that you have a right to remain silent. [Defendant]: Uh hmm. [Detective Stowinsky]: Anything you say maybe [sic] used against you. You have a right to a lawyer, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for free. Do you understand your rights? [Defendant]: Yes. Defendant agreed to talk with Stowinsky, and she signed the advice-of-rights form. During the questioning that followed, defendant told Stowinsky that she quarreled with Dumas, that Dumas attacked her, and that she shot him. Later the same day, defendant was interviewed a second time by Sergeant Michael DesRosiers. At the beginning of that second interview, the following exchange took place between defendant and DesRosiers: [Sergeant DesRosiers]: Alright, so um, Detective Stowinsky, remember he talked about your rights and everything? [Defendant]: Uh hmm. [Sergeant DesRosiers]: Same thing applies. Um, you don't, you don't have to even talk to me if you don't want to. You can get an attorney um, if you can't afford one, we'll make sure you get one. [Defendant]: Ok. [Sergeant DesRosiers]: So, um, we're just continuing the interview that you started with him. DesRosiers then proceeded to question defendant about inconsistencies between her previous statements and the physical evidence, including the location of Dumas's fatal bullet wound. Defendant again admitted shooting Dumas, and she attempted to explain the location of the bullet wound by suggesting that the bullet may have ricocheted. She also suggested that the shooting may have been an accident insofar as her finger may have "slipped" while on the trigger because it was "so hot and muggy." Following a preliminary examination, defendant was bound over for trial in the circuit court. In the circuit court, defendant moved to suppress her statements to the police, asserting that the Miranda warnings given before her interviews were inadequate because (1) the police failed to advise her that she could terminate the interrogation at any point and (2) the police did not inform her that she had the right to consult with an attorney before the interview and to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The trial court did not address whether the police were required to inform defendant that she had an ongoing right to cut off questioning at any point. Nevertheless, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress, reasoning that the Miranda warnings were defective because the police failed to inform defendant that she had the right to have an attorney present before and during the interrogation. The prosecution filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal, and the case is now before us on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court for consideration as on leave granted. On appeal, the prosecution argues that the warnings given to defendant complied with Miranda and that the trial court erred by suppressing defendant's statements to police. First, with regard to a suspect's right to cut off questioning, the prosecution asserts that Miranda does not require police to give an explicit warning that a suspect may terminate the interrogation at any time. Second, in terms of a suspect's right to the presence of counsel, the prosecution argues that, although the warnings given to defendant did not expressly advise her of her right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation, the warnings given before defendant's interrogations were sufficient because they advised defendant that she had the right to a lawyer. According to the prosecution, Miranda does not require the police to provide a suspect with more specific information regarding the right to the presence of an attorney before and during questioning. When reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, we review a trial court's factual findings for clear error. People v. Tanner , 496 Mich. 199, 206, 853 N.W.2d 653 (2014). "To the extent that a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo." id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). "We review de novo a trial court's ultimate decision on a motion to suppress." People v. Beuschlein , 245 Mich. App. 744, 748, 630 N.W.2d 921 (2001). "Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself." People v. Cortez (On Remand) , 299 Mich. App. 679, 691, 832 N.W.2d 1 (2013) (opinion by METER , J.). To protect this constitutional guarantee against compelled self-incrimination, before any custodial interrogation, the police must give a suspect the now-familiar Miranda warnings. People v. Daoud , 462 Mich. 621, 624 n. 1, 614 N.W.2d 152 (2000). In particular, under Miranda , a suspect must be provided four essential warnings as follows: "[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning [1] that he has the right to remain silent, [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." [ Florida v. Powell , 559 U.S. 50, 59-60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 175 L.Ed. 2d 1009 (2010), quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (alterations by the Powell Court).] "The four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, but [the United States Supreme Court] has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed." Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195. In other words, "[a] verbatim recital of the words of the Miranda opinion is not required." People v. Hoffman , 205 Mich. App. 1, 14, 518 N.W.2d 817 (1994). "Quite the contrary, Miranda itself indicated that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures." California v. Prysock , 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). Rather, when the "exact form" set out in Miranda is not used, "a fully effective equivalent" will suffice. Duckworth v. Eagan , 492 U.S. 195, 202, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed. 2d 166 (1989) (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). "Reviewing courts therefore need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement." id. at 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875. "The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda .' " id. , quoting Prysock , 453 U.S. at 361, 101 S.Ct. 2806 (alterations by the Duckworth Court). Ultimately, "[i]f the custodial interrogation is not preceded by an adequate warning, statements made during the custodial interrogation may not be introduced into evidence at the accused's criminal trial." People v. Elliott , 494 Mich. 292, 301, 833 N.W.2d 284 (2013). I. RIGHT TO CUT OFF QUESTIONING In the trial court, defendant challenged the adequacy of the Miranda warnings on two grounds. First, defendant argued that the right to cut off questioning is a "critical safeguard" under Miranda and that the police were thus required to warn defendant that she could cease answering questions at any point. Although the police informed defendant of her right to remain silent, she asserts that her statement must be suppressed because she was not more specifically informed that she could terminate the interrogation at any time. This argument is without merit. As noted, Miranda requires the police to provide a suspect with four-and only four-essential warnings: "[1] that he has the right to remain silent, [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." Powell , 559 U.S. at 59-60, 130 S.Ct. 1195 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alterations by the Powell Court). See also United States v. Crumpton , 824 F.3d 593, 611 (C.A. 6, 2016). From a simple review of these warnings, it is clear that the right to cut off questioning is not among the specific enumerated warnings that must be given. See United States v. Ellis , 125 F. Appx. 691, 699 (C.A. 6, 2005) ("[A] statement instructing [a suspect] that he has the right to stop answering questions at any point after questioning has begun, is not a phrase that the Supreme Court in Miranda suggested should be read to criminal suspects before interrogation."). It is true that, as emphasized by defendant, "a 'critical safeguard' identified in Miranda was a person's right to cut off questioning." People v. Adams , 245 Mich. App. 226, 230, 627 N.W.2d 623 (2001), quoting Michigan v. Mosley , 423 U.S. 96, 103, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed. 2d 313 (1975). As explained in Miranda : Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear . If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [ Miranda , 384 U.S. at 473-474, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added).] However, contrary to defendant's arguments, this "subsequent procedure" to cut off questioning as described in Miranda does not establish a "special warning requirement" regarding the right to terminate an interrogation. People v. Tubbs , 22 Mich. App. 549, 555-556, 177 N.W.2d 622 (1970). Instead, this right to end the interrogation is merely a means of exercising the right to remain silent. See id. ; United States v. Alba , 732 F.Supp. 306, 310 (D. Conn., 1990) ("[T]he right to cut off questioning is not one of the essential Fifth Amendment rights"; rather, it is "a way in which [a suspect] might have manifested his wish to invoke his right to remain silent.") (quotation marks omitted). An individual who has been informed in "clear and unequivocal terms" at the outset of the interrogation that "he has the right to remain silent" will understand "that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 467-468, 86 S.Ct. 1602. See also Colorado v. Spring , 479 U.S. 564, 574, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed. 2d 954 (1987) (recognizing that a suspect advised of his Miranda warnings "knows that he may choose not to talk to law enforcement officers, to talk only with counsel present, or to discontinue talking at any time"). Consequently, when a defendant has been advised of his or her right to remain silent as required by Miranda , the police need not also expressly inform the defendant that this right to remain silent may be exercised to cut off questioning at any point during the interrogation. See Tubbs , 22 Mich. App. at 555-556, 177 N.W.2d 622 ; see also Crumpton , 824 F.3d at 611 ("[A] defendant need not be informed of a right to stop questioning after it has begun.") (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Lares-Valdez , 939 F.2d 688, 690 (C.A. 9, 1991) (" Miranda requires that [the suspect] understood the right to remain silent; when and how he then chose to exercise that right is up to him."). Because defendant was advised of her right to remain silent, the Miranda warnings were not defective merely because she was not more specifically advised that she could exercise this right at any point during the interrogation. II. RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF AN ATTORNEY In the lower court, defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that a general warning regarding the "right to a lawyer" did not adequately inform defendant of her right to have an attorney present before and during the interrogation. Although there is conflicting authority on this issue, we agree with the trial court and we hold that a general warning regarding a "right to a lawyer" does not comply with the dictates of Miranda . Consequently, we affirm the trial court's suppression of defendant's statements. We begin our analysis by again noting what is required by Miranda . As explained by the United States Supreme Court: "[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning [1] that he has the right to remain silent, [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." [ Powell , 559 U.S. at 59-60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (alterations by the Powell Court).] It is the third warning-the "right to the presence of an attorney"-that is at issue in this case. Under Miranda , in the context of custodial interrogation, the right to the presence of counsel was recognized as "indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege ...." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 469, 86 S.Ct. 1602. As "a corollary of the right against compelled self-incrimination," the right to the presence of counsel "affords a way to 'insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion.' " Tanner , 496 Mich. at 207, 853 N.W.2d 653, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 466, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Notably, this "need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to questioning, but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so desires." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 470, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Thus, "as 'an absolute prerequisite to interrogation,' " the United States Supreme Court has held that "an individual held for questioning 'must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.' " Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Recognizing that Miranda mandates advice regarding the right to the presence of counsel, while also acknowledging that a talismanic incantation of the Miranda warnings is not required, Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, the question before us in this case is whether a general warning before an interrogation advising the suspect that he or she has a "right to a lawyer," reasonably conveys to a suspect that she has the right to consult with a lawyer before questioning and to have a lawyer present during the interrogation. We are not aware of any binding caselaw resolving this issue. On appeal, the prosecutor asserts that specific information regarding the right to the presence of counsel during interrogation is unnecessary in light of controlling United States Supreme Court precedent-namely, Powell , 559 U.S. 50, 130 S.Ct. 1195 ; Duckworth , 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875 ; and Prysock , 453 U.S. 355, 101 S.Ct. 2806. Certainly, as discussed, these cases stand for the proposition that no exact, talismanic incantation of the Miranda warnings is required. See Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195 ; Duckworth , 492 U.S. at 202, 109 S.Ct. 2875 ; Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806. But, none of these cases involved a barebones warning that the suspect had "a right to an attorney." To the contrary, Prysock and Duckworth both involved situations in which the suspect was undoubtedly told of the right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning, and the Miranda challenge related to whether information, or lack of information, regarding when counsel would be appointed rendered the warnings deficient. See Duckworth , 492 U.S. at 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875 (reviewing a warning in which the suspect was told, in part, that "he had the right to speak to an attorney before and during questioning" and that he had the "right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if [he could] not afford to hire one") (quotation marks omitted; alteration by the Duckworth Court); Prysock , 453 U.S. at 356, 101 S.Ct. 2806 (involving a warning in which the suspect was told that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before you are questioned, have him present with you while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning"). Powell is perhaps the closest factual situation to the present case, but it, too, is distinguishable. In Powell , the suspect was told, in relevant part: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." [ Powell , 559 U.S. at 54, 130 S.Ct. 1195.] The purported deficiency in the warnings in Powell was that informing the suspect that he had a right to talk to a lawyer before answering questions would mislead a suspect by suggesting that the right to consult an attorney did not also exist during the interrogation. Id. at 55, 130 S.Ct. 1195. In rejecting this argument, the Court read the warning as a whole and concluded that the warning communicated that the suspect could consult with a lawyer "before" answering questions and that, because this right could also be used at any time "during" the interview, it also conveyed the suspect's right to have an attorney present at all times. Id. at 62, 130 S.Ct. 1195. The warning in Powell thus plainly conveyed the critical information about a suspect's right to counsel-i.e., "the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation." id. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (quotation marks omitted). See also Powell , 559 U.S. at 62 n. 5, 130 S.Ct. 1195. In short, none of the Supreme Court cases cited by the prosecution involved warnings comparable to those in this case, and none of these cases resolved the issue now before us. Ultimately, we are not aware of any binding caselaw addressing the precise issue before us. Although there is no binding authority, the issue whether a general warning of the "right to an attorney" satisfies Miranda 's strictures has been considered by numerous courts, including this Court. In several decisions from this Court issued soon after Miranda was decided, this Court concluded that general warnings, such as informing a suspect that he was "entitled to an attorney," did not comply with Miranda because such warnings did not sufficiently convey a suspect's right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. People v. Whisenant , 11 Mich. App. 432, 434, 437, 161 N.W.2d 425 (1968). See also People v. Hopper , 21 Mich. App. 276, 279, 175 N.W.2d 889 (1970) ; People v. Jourdan , 14 Mich. App. 743, 744, 165 N.W.2d 890 (1968). While nonbinding under MCR 7.215(J)(1), this Court's opinions indicate that to comply with Miranda , the police must impart more than a broad warning regarding the right to counsel; that is, the warning must somehow convey the right to have counsel present during the interrogation. See People v. Johnson , 90 Mich. App. 415, 419-420, 282 N.W.2d 340 (1979) (distinguishing cases with warnings regarding the right "to an attorney" from those involving the right to have an attorney "present"). Similarly, numerous courts from other jurisdictions have interpreted Miranda as requiring the police to explicitly inform a suspect of the right to the presence of counsel before and during the interrogation. See, e.g., Bridgers v. Dretke , 431 F.3d 853, 860 n. 6 (C.A. 5, 2005) ("[A] suspect must be explicitly warned that he has the right to counsel during interrogation."); United States v. Tillman , 963 F.2d 137, 141 (C.A. 6, 1992) ("[T]he police failed to convey to defendant that he had the right to an attorney both before, during and after questioning."); Smith v. Rhay , 419 F.2d 160, 163 (C.A. 9, 1969) ("Although [the suspect] was told that he had the right to an attorney, he was not ... told, as required by Miranda , that he had the right to the presence of an attorney...."); State v. McNeely , 162 Idaho 413, 416, 398 P.3d 146 (2017) (concluding that a warning regarding " 'the right to an attorney ... [to] help you with-stuff' " did not adequately convey the right to the presence of counsel before and during questioning); Coffey v. State , 435 S.W.3d 834, 841-842 (Tex App, 2014) (holding that a preinterrogation warning that the defendant had "the right to an attorney" did not comply with Miranda ). Courts requiring an explicit warning regarding the right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation-as opposed to simply the right to an attorney-have "stressed the importance of informing defendants that they have the right to the actual physical presence of an attorney," United States v. Noti , 731 F.2d 610, 615 (C.A. 9, 1984), and emphasized the significance of advising defendants of the temporal immediacy of the right to counsel, see, e.g., State v. Williams , 144 So.3d 56, 59, 2013-1300 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/14/14) (recognizing that Miranda does not require a verbatim recitation but concluding that the "temporal requirement that the right to the lawyer attaches before and during any interrogation is key") (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Takai , 943 F.Supp.2d 1315, 1326 (D Utah, 2013) (concluding that the "warning was defective because it omitted reference to Defendant's right to have an attorney present during questioning, i.e. at the present time"). See also State v. Carlson , 228 Ariz. 343, 346, 266 P.3d 369 (App., 2011) (distinguishing "mere eventual representation by an attorney" from the right to the presence of an attorney that "applied before, and continued during, any questioning"). Likewise, as noted, this Court has previously acknowledged that Miranda warnings must provide a suspect with temporal information regarding the immediate right to the presence of counsel during questioning. See Whisenant , 11 Mich. App. at 437, 161 N.W.2d 425. For example, in Johnson , 90 Mich. App. at 420, 282 N.W.2d 340, we found a warning that the defendant " 'had the right to have an attorney present' " sufficient to convey the essential information required by Miranda because the right to have an attorney present "cannot reasonably be understood otherwise than as informing defendant of his right to counsel during interrogation and not merely at some subsequent trial." While no specific language is required, these cases persuasively recognize, based on Miranda 's requirements, that the advice regarding counsel must convey "the immediacy of the right in the sense that it exists both before and during interrogation." 2 LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th ed.), § 6.8(a), pp. 886-887. While there is authority recognizing the necessity of an explicit warning regarding the presence of counsel during the interrogation, courts are by no means uniform in reaching this conclusion. See Bridgers , 431 F.3d at 859 (describing the split among federal circuit courts as to whether Miranda warnings must explicitly provide that a suspect is entitled to the presence of counsel during an interrogation). Unlike courts concluding that Miranda warnings must contain information regarding the right to the presence of counsel during an interrogation, numerous other courts reason that Miranda does not require "highly particularized warnings" regarding "all possible circumstances in which Miranda rights might apply." United States v. Frankson , 83 F.3d 79, 82 (C.A. 4, 1996). Consequently, these cases conclude that when the police provide a generalized warning regarding the "right to an attorney"-without any temporal qualifications or limitations on that right-the police have complied with Miranda because a reasonable person would understand that an unqualified right to an attorney begins immediately and continues forward in time without qualification. id. See also United States v. Warren , 642 F.3d 182, 185 (C.A. 3, 2011) ("[I]t cannot be said that the Miranda court regarded an express reference to the temporal durability of [the right to an attorney] as elemental to a valid warning."); United States v. Caldwell , 954 F.2d 496, 502 (C.A. 8, 1992) (concluding, under plain-error review, that warning of the "right to an attorney" was not deficient because there was nothing "suggesting a false limitation" on the right to counsel and thus the suspect was not "actively misled"); United States v. Lamia , 429 F.2d 373, 376-377 (C.A. 2, 1970) (holding that failure to inform the defendant that he had the right to the "presence" of an attorney did not render warnings deficient when he had been told "without qualification that he had the right to an attorney"); Carter v. People , 398 P.3d 124, 128, 2017 CO 59M (Colo., 2017), as mod. on denial of reh. (July 31, 2017) ("[I]t would be highly counterintuitive for a reasonable suspect in a custodial setting, who has just been informed that the police cannot talk to him until after they advise him of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney, to understand that an interrogation may then proceed without permitting him to exercise either of those rights."); People v. Walton , 199 Ill. App.3d 341, 344-345, 145 Ill.Dec. 274, 556 N.E.2d 892 (1990) ("While the better practice would be for the police to make explicit that defendant's right to consult with a lawyer may be both before and during any police interrogation, we hold that the language used in this case [that the defendant had a right to consult with a lawyer] was sufficient to imply the right to counsel's presence during questioning" because "no restrictions were stated by the police in the present case as to how, when, or where defendant might exercise his right 'to consult with a lawyer.' "). Under these cases, provided that no improper or misleading limitations on the right to counsel are expressly communicated, a general warning regarding the "right to counsel" is sufficient to comply with Miranda 's requirements. Considering the conflicting persuasive authority, we conclude that the essential information required by Miranda includes a temporally related warning regarding the right to consult an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation, not merely general information regarding the "right to an attorney." Consequently, we reaffirm our decision in Whisenant , 11 Mich. App. at 437, 161 N.W.2d 425, and we hold that a warning preceding a custodial interrogation is deficient when the warning contains only a broad reference to the "right to an attorney" that does not, when the warning is read in its entirety, reasonably convey the suspect's right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation. See Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195 ; Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In reaching this conclusion, we fully acknowledge that there is a certain logic in the proposition that an unqualified general warning about a "right to an attorney" encompasses all facets of the right to counsel such that a broad warning before interrogation regarding the "right to an attorney" impliedly informs a suspect of the right to consult an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation. See Warren , 642 F.3d at 186-187 ; Frankson , 83 F.3d at 82 ; Walton , 199 Ill. App.3d at 344-345, 145 Ill.Dec. 274, 556 N.E.2d 892. But, in our view, this conclusion is disingenuous in light of Miranda 's mandate for clear and unambiguous warnings, and it assumes-contrary to Miranda -that all suspects, regardless of their backgrounds, have a working knowledge of everything implied by a reference to their "right to an attorney." In this regard, as noted, Miranda was focused on the right to counsel as a corollary to the right against compelled self-incrimination, i.e., the right to counsel that exists during custodial interrogation to "protect an accused's Fifth Amendment privilege in the face of interrogation." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602. This is a specific right, and it is this right to counsel in connection with custodial interrogation that must be overtly conveyed to a suspect under Miranda . See id. In this context, basic temporal information is key to ensuring that a defendant understands what the right to counsel entails, i.e., that it applies before and during the interrogation as opposed to some future point. In contrast to decisions like Frankson , 83 F.3d at 82, we are simply not persuaded by the conclusion that a reasonable person facing custodial interrogation, regardless of the person's background, would understand from a general reference to "right to an attorney" that this right includes the right to consult an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Undoubtedly, such an inference can reasonably be drawn by individuals with a preexisting understanding of the right to an attorney, including the fact that this right exists during custodial interrogation. But, "[c]onstitutional rights of an accused at the preliminary stage of the in-custody interrogation process is not common placed," and absent information regarding the immediacy of this right to counsel, the right to counsel could be "interpreted by an accused, in an atmosphere of pressure from the glare of the law enforcer and his authority, to refer to an impending trial or some time or event other than the moment the advice was given and the interrogation following." Atwell v. United States , 398 F.2d 507, 510 (C.A. 5, 1968). Rather than assume people are capable of inferring their constitutional rights, Miranda provides specific, clear-cut warnings that must be given regardless of "age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities ...." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468-469, 86 S.Ct. 1602. With regard to the right to counsel, Miranda and its progeny categorically provide that, "as 'an absolute prerequisite to interrogation,' ... an individual held for questioning 'must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.' " Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602. "Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 472, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In the face of Miranda 's clear dictates, we fail to see how a warning lacking this essential information regarding the right to consult an attorney and have an attorney present during an interrogation can be considered adequate. See Powell , 559 U.S. at 60, 130 S.Ct. 1195, quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In this case, neither Stowinsky nor DesRosiers explained to defendant that she had the right to the presence of counsel. Although defendant was generally advised that she had a right to an attorney, this broad warning failed to reasonably convey to defendant that she could consult an attorney before she was questioned and during her interrogation. Because defendant was not adequately advised of her right to the presence of counsel, her subsequent statements are inadmissible at trial. Miranda , 384 U.S. at 470, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; Elliott , 494 Mich. at 301, 833 N.W.2d 284. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting defendant's motion to suppress her statements. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. K. F. KELLY, J., concurred with HOEKSTRA, J. O'Connell, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). At 11:33 a.m., on August 12, 2016, defendant called the Wixom Police Department and informed the police that she had shot her boyfriend, Gabriel Dumas. The police were immediately dispatched to defendant's home. Defendant was arrested and transported to the Wixom Police Department. At the police station, defendant was interviewed by Detective Brian Stowinsky and Sergeant Michael DeRosiers. Detective Stowinsky first told defendant that he was going to question her about happened. Before he began questioning defendant, he gave her the following warnings: [B]efore I question, start asking you, you should know that you have a right to remain silent. * * * Anything you say may be used against you. You have a right to a lawyer[.] [I]f you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for free. Do you understand your rights? Defendant answered, "[y]es." Importantly, in addition to the oral Miranda rights, defendant signed a written advice of rights, which read: Before any questions are asked of you, you should know: (1) you have a right to remain silent; (2) anything you say may be used against you; (3) you have a right to a lawyer, and (4) if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided free. I understand what my rights are and am willing to talk. Defendant's interview lasted approximately 61 minutes. At the beginning of defendant's second interview later that day, Sergeant DeRosiers said to defendant: Detective Stowinsky, remember he talked about your rights and everything? * * * Same thing applies. ... [Y]ou don't have to even talk to me if you don't want to. You can get an attorney .... [I]f you can't afford one, we'll make sure you get one. Defendant indicated that she understood and answered Sergeant DeRosiers's questions. It is clear from these warnings that defendant's right to a lawyer related to the forthcoming questioning by both Detective Stowinsky and Sergeant DeRosiers. The lower court record is devoid of any coercion, compulsion, or wrongful conduct by the police. Also, there is no indication that defendant did not or was not capable of understanding that she was entitled to have a free attorney before, during, or after questioning. Moreover, the ordinary layperson understands that the right to an attorney before questioning extends to the duration of questioning. There is no meaningful difference between a right to a lawyer before questioning and during questioning. In addition, by the time Sergeant DeRosiers interviewed her, defendant had already been interviewed once. Sergeant DeRosiers's reminder about defendant's rights reinforced her right to an attorney even though she had already been questioned by Detective Stowinsky. For these reasons, I concur with those cases cited in the majority opinion holding that a generalized warning that the suspect has the right to counsel, without specifying when, satisfies the Miranda requirements. I conclude that defendant was adequately informed of her Miranda rights. I would reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I concur with the balance of the majority opinion. People v. Mathews , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 23, 2017 (Docket No. 339079). "Lower federal court decisions are not binding on this Court, but may be considered on the basis of their persuasive analysis." People v. Fomby , 300 Mich. App. 46, 50 n. 1, 831 N.W.2d 887 (2013). It is apparently not uncommon for law enforcement officials to include some type of "fifth prong" or "catch-all" provision in the recitation of Miranda warnings, advising suspects that their rights may be asserted at any point during the interrogation. See Rogers et al., The Language of Miranda Warnings in American Jurisdictions: A Replication and Vocabulary Analysis , 32 Law & Hum. Behav. 124, 131 (2008) (reporting that over 80% of jurisdictions include a "fifth prong"). See, e.g., Powell , 559 U.S. at 55, 130 S.Ct. 1195 (involving a catch-all addition to the Miranda warnings in which the suspect was told that he had "the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview") (quotation marks omitted). But the fact remains that Miranda itself did not include such a warning. Although published decisions of this Court issued before November 1, 1990, are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(J)(1), they may be considered as persuasive authority. People v. Barbarich , 291 Mich. App. 468, 476 n. 2, 807 N.W.2d 56 (2011). The dissent emphasizes that the warnings given to defendant in this case were prefaced with the word "before," and the dissent concludes that this was sufficient to convey to defendant her right to an attorney before questioning as well as during questioning. This reliance on the word "before" is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the word "before" is not used in the warnings as an indication of when defendant's right to counsel exists. That is, she was not told that she had a right to an attorney before questioning; rather, she was told that before any questions were asked, she should know that she has a right to an attorney. Second, even if the use of "before" is read to have informed defendant of her right to counsel before questioning, contrary to the dissent's conclusion, there is a meaningful difference between the right to consult a lawyer before questioning and the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Indeed, the warning in Powell was found adequate because it conveyed the right to counsel, "not only at the outset of interrogation, but at all times" during the interrogation. Powell , 559 U.S. at 62, 130 S.Ct. 1195. If anything, the argument could be made that the use of the term "before," without any indication that the right also applied during the interrogation, functioned as an improper temporal limitation, suggesting that the right to counsel existed before any questions were asked, but not during questioning. Numerous decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court have similarly quoted formulations of the Miranda warnings that convey the right to the "presence of an attorney" or more specifically the right to "the presence of an attorney during any questioning." See, e.g., Tanner , 496 Mich. at 207 n. 3, 853 N.W.2d 653 ; Elliott , 494 Mich. at 301, 833 N.W.2d 284 ; Daoud , 462 Mich. at 624 n. 1, 614 N.W.2d 152. In support of the conclusion that general warnings are sufficient, some of these cases also note that Miranda discussed, with apparent approval, the warnings given by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at the time Miranda was decided. See, e.g., Warren , 642 F.3d at 184-185 ; Lamia , 429 F.2d at 376. As set forth in Miranda , at that time the FBI's practice was to warn a suspect that "he is not required to make a statement, that any statement may be used against him in court, that the individual may obtain the services of an attorney of his own choice and, more recently, that he has a right to free counsel if he is unable to pay."Miranda , 384 U.S. at 483, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Because the FBI warnings discussed in Miranda did not contain a temporal reference to a suspect's right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation, cases such as Warren and Lamia reason-and the prosecutor argues on appeal-that Miranda does not contain such a requirement. Admittedly, there is tension between what Miranda , 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, demanded and what the FBI warnings discussed in Miranda conveyed. Indeed, in dissenting opinions to Miranda , Justice Clark and Justice Harlan both opined that the FBI warnings in question did not satisfy the strictures laid down by the Miranda majority. See id. at 500 n. 3, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ( Clark , J., dissenting); id. at 521, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ( Harlan , J., dissenting). It does not appear that the Supreme Court has resolved this tension. See Powell , 559 U.S. at 73 n. 8, 130 S.Ct. 1195 ( Stevens , J., dissenting) (expressing doubt as to whether "warning a suspect of his 'right to counsel,' without more, reasonably conveys a suspect's full rights under Miranda "). Moreover, we note that the discussion of FBI practices in the Miranda majority was immediately followed by a discussion of the then-current practices in England, Scotland, India, Ceylon, and the United States military courts in the larger context of responding to concerns that preinterrogation warnings would place an undue burden on investigators and detrimentally affect criminal law enforcement. See Miranda , 384 U.S. at 481-489, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Given the context in which the Miranda Court expressed approval of the FBI's warnings and the difference of opinion that currently exists among the various courts regarding the necessity of warning a suspect about the right to the presence of counsel during interrogation, it is not clear to us that Miranda 's discussion of the FBI practices compels the conclusion that advising a suspect of the right to counsel is sufficient to convey the right to the presence of counsel during an interrogation. In comparison to the right to counsel during custodial interrogation incident to the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at, or after, the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings and extends to all critical stages of the proceedings. See People v. Buie (On Remand) , 298 Mich. App. 50, 61, 825 N.W.2d 361 (2012) ; People v. Williams , 244 Mich. App. 533, 538, 624 N.W.2d 575 (2001). Obviously, the police do not have to provide suspects with a constitutional exegesis on the right to counsel. But for Miranda warnings to be meaningful, there needs to be an overt expression of the immediacy of the right to counsel-that it "exists both before and during interrogation." 2 LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th ed.), § 6.8(a), pp. 886-887. See also Noti , 731 F.2d at 615 ("The right to have counsel present during questioning is meaningful. Advisement of this right is not left to the option of the police...."). See also Carlson , 228 Ariz. at 346, 266 P.3d 369 (discussing the fact that the suspect was unaware "that he had a right to the presence of an attorney (as distinguished from mere eventual representation by an attorney), and that the right applied before, and continued during, any questioning"); Roberts v. State , 874 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla.App. 2004) (noting that the suspect believed he could only have a lawyer " 'in the courtroom' "). Indeed, even among cases concluding that general warnings may suffice, those courts have acknowledged that generality in the warnings may potentially lead to ambiguity, Caldwell , 954 F.2d at 502, and that general warnings merely "imply" the right to counsel during the interrogation, Walton , 199 Ill. App.3d at 344-345, 145 Ill.Dec. 274, 556 N.E.2d 892. "The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Only lawyers are capable of dissecting words and phrases so finely as to confuse the meaning of the Miranda warnings. The ordinary layperson clearly understands the right to have an attorney before, during, and after questioning. When the police warn a suspect before the start of questioning that the suspect has the right to counsel, for what other purpose than questioning-the entire duration of questioning-would a suspect be entitled to a lawyer?

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. I respectfully dissent from this Court's order denying leave to appeal because I agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that the ex post facto issue here was not properly before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, I would vacate the part of the Court of Appeals judgment that addresses this issue. Following jury trials in the 1990s, 16-year-old defendant Christopher Wiley and 17-year-old defendant William Rucker were convicted of first-degree murder and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and each was sentenced to life without parole. After Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), were decided by the United States Supreme Court and MCL 769.25a was enacted, defendant Wiley was resentenced to 25 to 60 years' imprisonment and defendant Rucker was resentenced to 30 to 60 years' imprisonment. In a published and split decision, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 769.25a(6), pertaining to good-time and disciplinary credits, was unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 769.25a(6) violates the federal and state Ex Post Facto Clauses because Michigan's statutory scheme allowed defendants to earn good-time and disciplinary credits at the time defendants' crimes were committed and the elimination of such credits in MCL 769.25a(6) increased defendants' punishments. The dissenting judge, however, concluded that the ex post facto issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals because "the sole issue raised is whether a nonparty (the Parole Board or the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) ) may-in the future -constitutionally apply MCL 769.25a(6) to the unchallenged sentences imposed by the trial court" and that as a result defendants are not "aggrieved parties" under MCR 7.203(A) because they are not seeking relief from their sentences as imposed by the trial court. People v. Wiley , 324 Mich. App. 130, 168-169, 176, 919 N.W.2d 802 (2018) ( BOONSTRA , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). I agree with Judge BOONSTRA . MCR 7.203(A) provides, in pertinent part, "The court [of appeals] has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by an aggrieved party ...." Defendants here are not arguing that the trial court violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses; rather, they are arguing that the MDOC or the Parole Board may violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses in the future if they apply MCL 769.25a(6) at that time. In other words, defendants are not arguing that they have been aggrieved by the trial court's sentencing orders; instead, they are concerned that they might be aggrieved in the future by the MDOC or the Parole Board if they apply MCL 769.25a(6). Accordingly, the issue is simply not ripe and defendants were not in any way aggrieved by the trial court orders. See Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm. , 475 Mich. 286, 292, 715 N.W.2d 846 (2006) ("[A] litigant on appeal must demonstrate an injury arising from either the actions of the trial court or the appellate court judgment rather than an injury arising from the underlying facts of the case."). Indeed, both parties recognized this truism at one point or another while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals. In response to defendants' appeals in the Court of Appeals, the prosecutor argued that the issue was not ripe. And in response to the prosecutor's briefs on appeal, both defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeals. However, when the Attorney General took over representation on behalf of the prosecutor, he opposed defendants' motions, contending that defendants had moved to dismiss their appeals only because of the pendency of a related class action challenge in federal court. The Court of Appeals then denied these motions. Furthermore, at oral arguments in that court, counsel for defendants agreed with the prosecutor's initial argument that the issue was not ripe. Because I agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that the ex post facto issue is not ripe and that defendants were not aggrieved parties in the Court of Appeals, i.e., they were not aggrieved or harmed by the trial court's sentencing orders, I would vacate the part of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing the ex post facto issue. Finally, if the ex post facto issue were properly before this Court, I would grant leave to appeal rather than simply deny leave. The Court of Appeals has struck down a Michigan statute on the grounds that it violates both the federal and state Constitutions. When a lower court strikes down an enactment of the Legislature as unconstitutional, this Court, the highest court of our state, should as a general proposition carefully review that decision because "[s]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent." In re Sanders , 495 Mich. 394, 404, 852 N.W.2d 524 (2014). Zahra and Wilder, JJ., join the statement of Markman, C.J. MCL 769.25a(6) provides: A defendant who is resentenced under subsection (4) shall be given credit for time already served, but shall not receive any good time credits, special good time credits, disciplinary credits, or any other credits that reduce the defendant's minimum or maximum sentence. Judge Boonstra concurred in the majority's decision to the extent it held that defendant Rucker's resentencing did not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Wilder, J. The Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq ., governs the distribution of an individual's property at death. Among other reasons, the Legislature enacted it "[t]o promote a speedy and efficient system for liquidating a decedent's estate and making distribution to the decedent's successors." MCL 700.1201. EPIC grants a decedent's surviving spouse certain rights. For example, the surviving spouse of a decedent who dies intestate-that is, without a will- may still take a share of the decedent's property. MCL 700.2202(1). In fact, even if the decedent dies testate-with a will-a surviving spouse may take a share different from that allocated by the will's plain terms. MCL 700.2202(2). However, not every spouse can rely on these rights. For example, a valid divorce or annulment severs such reliance. MCL 700.2801(1). Alternatively, a spouse living in a bigamous relationship at the time of the decedent's death is also excluded. MCL 700.2801(2)(d). Although EPIC anticipates a number of other circumstances, only one is at issue in the instant case: whether the surviving spouse was "willfully absent" from the decedent for more than one year before his death and is therefore ineligible under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) to exercise her rights under EPIC. This case turns on the meaning of "willfully absent" as used in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ). In the proceeding below, the Court of Appeals concluded that "willful absence for the purposes of the EPIC is a factual question that may concern more than physical proximity," and that a "trial court should determine whether a spouse is willfully absent ... by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case." In re Erwin Estate , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 10, 2016 (Docket Nos. 323387 and 329264), pp. 2-3. We granted leave to consider two questions, both of first impression: (1) whether the term "willfully absent" is defined exclusively by physical separation, or whether it includes consideration of the emotional bonds and connections between spouses; and (2) whether MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) requires proof that a spouse intends to abandon his or her marital rights. For the reasons now discussed, we affirm. I The decedent, James Erwin, Sr., had six children from a previous marriage when he married appellee Maggie Erwin in 1968. James and Maggie went on to have four children together, bringing James's total number of children to 10. Several years after their wedding, James and Maggie bought a house in Saginaw. However, although remaining in Saginaw, Maggie moved out and established a separate residence in 1976. She subsequently petitioned James for financial assistance, and James consented to a support order that provided assistance for Maggie and for their children. But the two continued to live apart. There is no indication that they ever lived under the same roof again. Decades later, in 2010, James and Maggie joined together as plaintiffs and sued James's employer to reinstate Maggie's health insurance coverage in accordance with his retiree medical benefits. The couple was represented by L. Fallasha Erwin, James's son from his first marriage. During the proceedings, it was stated that Maggie was in poor health and that if she were to die, the loss to James would be irreparable. James made it clear that Maggie was still his wife and that they had an ongoing relationship. On October 12, 2012, James died intestate. James and Maggie had never filed for divorce nor had they otherwise formally separated. In the eyes of the law, they very much remained married until the time of James's passing. As testament to this fact, Maggie was listed as James's surviving spouse on his death certificate. Following his death, Maggie and James's children proceeded to sort through his estate informally. Yet all was not well with the related but distinct families that James had fathered. Apparently dissatisfied with the communication and cooperation shown by Maggie and her four children, one of James's children from his first marriage, Beatrice King, represented by her attorney-brother, L. Fallasha Erwin, petitioned the probate court to open formal proceedings and to be appointed as the estate's personal representative. On June 12, 2013, eight months after James's death and with no other interested party objecting, the probate court granted Beatrice's petition. The probate court proceedings were contentious from the outset, with allegations of deceit and calls for sanctions. Both sides of James's family were involved and filed motions, only one of which is relevant to the case as it currently comes before us. In 2014, Beatrice asked the probate court to determine whether Maggie was a surviving spouse in accordance with EPIC. Beatrice argued, in part, that Maggie was not a surviving spouse under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) because she was "willfully absent" from James in the years leading up to his death. If proved, because James died intestate, Maggie would not be an heir for the purposes of inheritance. She would not be entitled to a share of James's estate. On May 31, 2014, the probate court held a hearing on Beatrice's motion, and on July 17, 2014, it decided that motion in Maggie's favor in a written opinion, ruling that Maggie was James's surviving spouse. Beatrice appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court's ruling. We subsequently granted Beatrice's application for leave to appeal, limited to the two questions described earlier. II We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. People v. Buehler , 477 Mich. 18, 23, 727 N.W.2d 127 (2007). However, any underlying findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error. People v. Knight , 473 Mich. 324, 338, 701 N.W.2d 715 (2005) ; see MCR 2.613(C). III A For the purposes of EPIC, a surviving spouse does not include [a]n individual who ... for 1 year or more before the death of the deceased person: (i ) Was willfully absent from the decedent spouse. [ MCL 700.2801(2)(e).] With this in mind, we turn to the first question: whether the term "willfully absent" is defined exclusively by physical separation, or whether it includes consideration of the emotional bonds and connections between spouses? 1 As an initial matter, we note that EPIC does not define the term "willfully absent." Because our goal is to glean legislative intent from the plain meaning of statutory language, Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare Sys. , 465 Mich. 53, 60, 631 N.W.2d 686 (2001), the dictionary is our first point of reference to determine the term's significance, People v. Morey , 461 Mich. 325, 330, 603 N.W.2d 250 (1999). The common understanding and the traditional legal usage of a term also guide our interpretation. People v. Thompson , 477 Mich. 146, 151-152, 730 N.W.2d 708 (2007) ; see also MCL 8.3a ("All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning."). MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) uses the term "absent" as an adjective to describe a person's conduct in relation to his or her spouse. In this context, "absent" could mean that someone is missing, not present, or, alternatively, that a person is exhibiting inattentiveness toward another. The American Heritage Dictionary (2d ed.); Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). The word "willful," whether or not used as a legal term of art, describes an act that is voluntary, deliberate and intentional. Random House Webster's (2d ed.); Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.). But the intent to commit any act does not, by itself, render it "willful." Rather, a "willful" act is one that is taken with the intent to do something specific. Jennings v. Southwood , 446 Mich. 125, 140, 521 N.W.2d 230 (1994) ; cf. People v. Beaudin , 417 Mich. 570, 575, 339 N.W.2d 461 (1983) (explaining that a willful act is one committed with the specific intent to bring about the particular result the statute seeks to prohibit). Taken together, these definitions indicate that the phrase "willfully absent," as used in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), requires that the surviving spouse act with the intent to be away from his or her spouse for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding the death. However, while the plain language of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) suggests that the term "absent" may refer to physical separation or a lack of emotional support in the form of inattentiveness, it does not tell us specifically whether the term refers exclusively to the physical or whether it includes an emotional element. As such, we turn to neighboring statutory provisions for additional context. See Robinson v. City of Lansing , 486 Mich. 1, 15, 782 N.W.2d 171 (2010) ("[I]t is ... well established that to discern the Legislature's intent, statutory provisions are not to be read in isolation; rather, context matters, and thus statutory provisions are to be read as a whole."); Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 472 Mich. 521, 533, 697 N.W.2d 895 (2005) (noting that the meaning of statutory language, plain or otherwise, always depends on context). With regard to the neighboring provisions, in addition to excluding one who is "willfully absent," the definition of surviving spouse also excludes those who did any of the following for 1 year or more before the death of the deceased person: * * * (ii ) Deserted the decedent spouse. (iii ) Willfully neglected or refused to provide support for the decedent spouse if required to do so by law. [ MCL 700.2801(2)(e).] Taking MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) first, when deployed as a transitive verb, as here, the term "to desert" is commonly used as a synonym for abandon-to forsake or leave someone. The American Heritage Dictionary (2d ed.); Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). This common meaning mirrors the traditional legal usage of the term "desertion" in the context of divorce. In that context, a husband or wife deserted his or her spouse when the husband or wife ceased cohabitation and physically departed without the intent to return. Fanner v. Fanner , 326 Mich. 466, 467, 40 N.W.2d 225 (1949) ; see also People v. Dunston , 173 Mich. 368, 373, 138 N.W. 1047 (1912) (noting that, for purposes of the crime of desertion or abandonment, the term "desertion" meant to separate physically without the intent to resume martial relations). Therefore, although in theory an individual could desert a spouse emotionally, the verb's common connotation in conjunction with its traditional legal meaning tells us that MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) most likely uses the term "deserted" to describe a purely physical distance. Accordingly, an individual deserts his or her spouse within the meaning of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) if he or she physically leaves the marital home with the intent never to return and the spouse dies more than a year later. MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) permits us to draw an important inference. If we interpret the word "absent" as used in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) to refer only to physical absence, there would be an almost complete overlap between MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) and (ii ). That is, an individual who "deserts" his or her spouse in the year or more before the spouse's death will always have been "willfully absent." This would render MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) redundant and counsels against equating the term solely with physical absence. Wickens , 465 Mich. at 60, 631 N.W.2d 686. Next, we examine MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(iii ). A natural reading of that subparagraph indicates that the phrase "to provide support for the decedent spouse if required to do so by law" modifies the verbs "refused" and "neglected." Therefore, an individual is not a surviving spouse within the meaning of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(iii ) if he or she "[w]illfully neglected ... to provide support for the decedent spouse if required to do so by law," or "refused to provide support for the decedent spouse if required to do so by law." Generally, spousal support is mandated by law only in two situations. The first involves divorce. MCL 552.23. However, divorcees are not surviving spouses for the purposes of EPIC. MCL 700.2801(1). As a result, MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(iii ) cannot be referring to spousal support following a divorce. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co. , 466 Mich. 142, 146, 644 N.W.2d 715, 717 (2002) ("Courts must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory."). That leaves an action for separate maintenance-the second situation in which spousal support can be mandated-which can be filed by an individual based on the same grounds as an action for divorce, MCL 552.7, but in circumstances in which a divorce is not pursued or cannot be obtained. As already stated, the word "willfully" refers to an intent to do something specific. "Neglected," on the other hand, means to fail to give the proper attention to something, or otherwise to leave it undone; "refused" simply means to decline to do something. The American Heritage Dictionary (2d ed.); Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Accordingly, for the purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(iii ), an individual is not a surviving spouse if he or she intentionally fails or flatly refuses to pay legally required separate maintenance for the year or more leading up to his or her spouse's death. When viewed side-by-side, it becomes clear that MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) and (iii ) are not connected by an individual's physical proximity in relation to his or her spouse, and we cannot therefore infer that MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) refers solely to physical absence by its mere association with its neighboring provisions. Cf. People v. Jackson , 487 Mich. 783, 791, 790 N.W.2d 340 (2010) (denoting that neighboring statutory provisions should be read in harmony with one another). Yet, another connection does bond these otherwise disparate subsections. Both MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) and (iii ) describe acts on behalf of a surviving spouse that for all intents and purposes are inconsistent with the very existence of a legal marriage. This is either by a spouse refusing to provide required support or by simply abandoning the other without an intent to return. In other words, MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) and (iii ) involve intentional acts that bring about a situation of divorce in practice, even when the legal marriage has not been formally dissolved. MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) should be interpreted with this context in mind. See Madugula v. Taub , 496 Mich. 685, 696, 853 N.W.2d 75 (2014) (explaining that statutory provisions must be interpreted in the context of the law as a whole). A comprehensive review of the statutory scheme confirms that the term "willfully absent" should be interpreted consistently with this observation. See Jackson , 487 Mich. at 791, 790 N.W.2d 340. Not only is "[a]n individual who is divorced from the decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled ... not a surviving spouse" for purposes of EPIC, MCL 700.2801(1), but also "[a]n individual who obtains or consents to a final decree or judgment of divorce from the decedent or an annulment of their marriage, which decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in [Michigan]" is not a surviving spouse," MCL 700.2801(2)(a). And this includes "[a]n individual who, following an invalid decree or judgment of divorce or annulment obtained by the decedent, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third individual." MCL 700.2801(2)(b). These provisions all describe a situation in which, in effect, a spouse has initiated conduct that results in the complete dissolution of his or her marriage, either in fact or in practice. In those circumstances, an individual, even if legally a surviving spouse, cannot avail himself or herself of all the statutory rights inherent with that title. Taking all this into consideration, it is clear that the term "willfully absent" cannot be defined exclusively by physical separation. Simply put, there must be something more than a mere physical distance. There are, after all, countless situations in which spouses choose to be physically separated but do not want to interrupt or even weaken their marital relationship. Some married couples are separated by occupation-for example, when a spouse intentionally takes a better job in a neighboring region so that he or she may provide more comfortably for their family-while others are separated by civic duty-like when a member of the armed forces is deployed overseas in service to this nation. But these circumstances alone reveal no desire to destroy or undermine the marriage, and a committed spouse should not forfeit his or her inheritance on the basis of the erroneous assumption that a physical distance prevented the continued pursuit of an otherwise loving and supportive relationship. If two married people decide to live apart but maintain an element of emotional support and contact, courts have no business second-guessing that life decision. As a result, when MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) is read in this proper context, the following explication becomes clear: willful absence requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. It presents a factual question for the trial court to answer: whether a spouse's complete absence brought about a practical end to the marriage. The burden is on the party challenging a legal spouse's status to show that the spouse was in fact "willfully absent" for the year or more leading up to the decedent's death. See In re LaFreniere's Estate , 316 Mich. 285, 291, 25 N.W.2d 252 (1946) ("[W]here exceptions to an account are of an affirmative nature ... the burden of sustaining such exceptions rests on the contestant."). Although an intentional physical absence is necessary to a finding of willful absence, without additional indicia of a complete absence in terms of emotional support and contact, courts should conclude that the marriage endured and allow the remaining legal spouse to retain his or her "surviving spouse" status. 2 The dissent contends that "absent" in this context refers only to physical absence. In doing so, it states that the "critical aspect" of absence is the lack of physical presence, because a dictionary defines "absent" as "not present" or "away." Post at 324-. Unfortunately, the sum total of the dissent's analysis on this point is a string citation to dictionaries that define absence in terms of physical presence. See post at 325 n. 13. We do not disagree that "absent" can be understood in physical terms. And we are not surprised to find that multiple dictionaries define absence in this way. The question here is not whether physical absence is a "critical aspect" of absence in general-we agree that it is in this case-but whether, in the context of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), absence relates solely to physical absence. This is where our disagreement lies. While the dissent apparently agrees that "absent" can be defined as either a lack of physical presence or emotional inattentiveness, see post at 325, it nonetheless argues that these definitions are mutually exclusive and that therefore it is improper to define "absent" to encompass both definitions, see post at ---- n. 26 ("[O]ne definition requires a person to be physically absent , i.e., "not present; not in company; away," while the other, as it pertains to human interaction, requires in its ordinary usage a person to be physically present .... "). We disagree with the dissent that in order to be "inattentive" one must also be "physically present." One who is physically absent can still be "attentive" by providing emotional support and communication; conversely, one who is physically absent can also be "inattentive" by withholding emotional support and communication. Accordingly, we do not believe that physical distance and inattentiveness are "logically inconsistent," post at ---- n. 26, because neither concept is necessarily dependent upon the other. More fundamentally, the dissent contends that when interpreting a statute, the interpreter must choose the single most appropriate dictionary definition of a term, rather than relying on multiple definitions. See post at ----. The dissent also contends that "[b]y knitting together ... disparate definitions, the majority creates its own definition ... instead of choosing the contextually appropriate meaning." Post at 325. We disagree. When consulting a dictionary, this Court does not relinquish its duty to exercise its best interpretive judgment. In this way, the dictionary should be seen as a tool to facilitate those judgments, not conclusively resolve linguistic questions. It is one thing to "knit together" disparate and incompatible definitions, as, for example, by concluding that a "horse" refers both to the familiar animal and also to a frame or structure on which something is mounted or supported. It is quite another to insist on a single definition when there are multiple choices with slight shades of different meaning, each of which is reasonably understood to apply to a term in a particular context. Unlike the dissent, we believe that "absent" is a term broad enough to reasonably encompass both cited definitions and that the overall context and manifest purpose of the statute under inquiry renders both definitions appropriately applicable. These two definitions are not in tension in any way, they are not logically incompatible in any manner, and each describes a subtly different understanding of "absent" that is both relevant and necessary to give full and complete meaning to the statute at issue here. "Absent" in the course of describing a human relationship, particularly that between husband and wife, might fairly describe aspects of both physical and emotional proximity. The dissent is entitled to yoke itself to a single definition that remains within the boundaries set forth by a single dictionary, but we prefer to rely on the dictionary as a tool for supplying the most reasonable definition of a term in its most relevant context. The Legislature is not confined to a single dictionary definition of a term when enacting a law and neither should this Court be so limited when interpreting that law. The dictionary is but one data point; it guides our analysis, but it does not by itself settle it. The primary obligation of this Court "is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature" in light of the language of the statutory provision and the context in which it appears. Lash v. Traverse City , 479 Mich. 180, 187, 735 N.W.2d 628 (2007). We believe that we have reasonably interpreted the text at issue and that we have thus fulfilled this duty. For the reasons stated, we conclude that, in this context, "absent" is most reasonably defined as referring to complete physical and emotional absence from the deceased spouse. This definition is consistent with the statutory scheme as a whole, which contemplates that one only loses his or her status as a "surviving spouse" if he or she takes action that is akin to a complete repudiation of the marriage. Moreover, this interpretation gives independent meaning to the "desertion" and "willfully absent" provisions and avoids rendering either provision redundant. 3 In the proceeding below, the Court of Appeals came to a similar conclusion. It ruled that "willful absence for the purposes of the EPIC is a factual question that may concern more than physical proximity." Erwin , unpub. op. at 3. As with our analysis, the Court of Appeals observed that a dictionary alone could not resolve the question before it, id . at 3-4, and it also turned to MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ) and (iii ) to develop its view that mere physical separation was insufficient, id . at 4. Rather than sticking with a purely textual analysis, the Court of Appeals considered past precedent. The Court noted that an earlier case, In re Harris Estate , 151 Mich.App. 780, 391 N.W.2d 487 (1986), had construed a similarly worded statute, see MCL 700.290, as amended by 1980 PA 396, and that the Court of Appeals in Harris had determined that the term "willfully absent" "encompassed 'emotional as well as physical absence ....' " Erwin , unpub. op. at 4, quoting Harris , 151 Mich.App. at 785, 391 N.W.2d 487. As the Erwin Court observed, the Harris Court had reasoned that " '[p]hysical presence in the marital home is strong evidence that the party remains involved in the marriage to some degree' " and that "a non-surviving spouse must show 'actions indicating a conscious decision to permanently no longer be involved in the marriage.' " Erwin , unpub. op. at 4 (alteration in original), quoting Harris , 151 Mich.App. at 786, 391 N.W.2d 487. The Erwin Court then held that a "physical separation [was] only one piece of evidence that the trial court may consider and weigh when determining whether one spouse was willfully absent from another." Erwin , unpub. op. at 5. Yet in In re Peterson Estate , 315 Mich.App. 423, 889 N.W.2d 753 (2016), which was decided just weeks after the instant case, the Court of Appeals came to a different determination. There, the Court of Appeals held that the phrase "willfully absent," as used in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), referred to physical absence only. Id . at 432, 889 N.W.2d 753. Relying on a dictionary definition, the Court suggested that "[t]he word 'absent' ordinarily refers to being physically away." Id ., citing The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.). And although the Court of Appeals recognized that absence could figuratively refer to both physical proximity and emotional support, without clear direction from the statutory text, it limited the term to the former meaning. Peterson , 315 Mich.App. at 432, 889 N.W.2d 753. Interestingly, the Court of Appeals in Peterson also reviewed the earlier decision in Harris . But it determined that the Harris Court had concluded that "willfully absent" referred solely to physical absence. Id . at 431-432, 889 N.W.2d 753. The Court of Appeals in Peterson therefore saw Harris as supporting its position that the term "willfully absent," as used in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), encompassed only physical absence. Id . at 432, 889 N.W.2d 753. In that Court's view, an individual was not a surviving spouse for purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), if he or she was intentionally physically absent from his or her spouse for the year or more leading up to the spouse's passing. Id . at 432-433, 889 N.W.2d 753. We agree with the Court of Appeals' analysis in the case at bar and reiterate that an individual is not a surviving spouse for purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) if he or she intended to be both physically and emotionally absent for the year or more leading up to the deceased spouse's passing. Peterson is overruled to the extent that it concluded otherwise. B We now turn to the second question: whether MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) requires proof that a spouse intended to abandon his or her marital rights? We note that the plain language of the statute evinces no express requirement that an individual intend to abandon his or her marital rights before being excluded as a surviving spouse pursuant to MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ). Indeed, the statute's text clearly includes a different requisite intent: that of being "willfully" absent. We are not at liberty to ignore this unambiguous legislative directive. People v. McIntire , 461 Mich. 147, 153, 599 N.W.2d 102 (1999). As a result, the only intent that a spouse must have is to be "absent." Therefore, a party seeking to establish that a spouse is not a surviving spouse pursuant to MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) does not need to show that the spouse intended to dissolve the marriage, only that the surviving spouse intended to be absent from the decedent spouse. The notion that MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) requires a showing that an individual intended to abandon his or her marital rights comes from In re Harris . The Court of Appeals read that intent into the statute in light of its recognition that forfeitures are disfavored in the eyes of the law. Harris , 151 Mich.App. at 786, 391 N.W.2d 487, citing Miller v. Pond , 214 Mich. 186, 183 N.W. 24 (1921). When rendering its decision, the Peterson Court disagreed with the conclusion reached in Harris , stating that "[t]he Legislature did not include such a requirement, and we are not at liberty to read one into the statute." Peterson , 315 Mich.App. at 433, 889 N.W.2d 753. We agree with the conclusion reached by Peterson . MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) does not require proof that a spouse intends to abandon his or her marital rights. Courts should not resort to judicial construction when the words of the Legislature are clear and unambiguous. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 448 Mich. 22, 27, 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). IV In the present case, the following is not in dispute. James and Maggie were married in 1968. In 1973 they bought a martial home together in Saginaw as tenants by the entireties. Maggie left the marital home in 1975 and took residence at a separate address, but she remained only a few miles away, still in Saginaw. Shortly thereafter, she sought financial support and James agreed to pay. Neither party disagrees that Maggie was physically absent from the martial home in the years that followed, intentionally so, and neither party disputes that James and Maggie Erwin remained legally married until James's death. Maggie is even listed as the surviving spouse on James's death certificate, and she is the named beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Therefore, the question is whether, given the totality of the circumstances, Maggie intended to be physically and emotionally absent from James, resulting in a practical end to their marriage? Unfortunately for Beatrice, the record in this case is sparse. Before the probate court, Beatrice asserted that Maggie was not a surviving spouse and moved for a declaration of her status as a nonsurviving spouse pursuant to EPIC. But her claim rested solely on the allegation that Maggie and James did not cohabitate for over 36 years, and she provided nothing more in support of her claim than evidence of this fact. Beatrice never argued that Maggie and James had severed all emotional connections or that they did not in some way provide one another with emotional support. And other evidence in the record-specifically that in 2010 James filed a breach of contract action against his employer to ensure that the employer resumed providing medical coverage to Maggie as James's spouse-suggests that James and Maggie remained married up until the time of James's death. At a minimum, this lawsuit indicates that, not long before his death, James felt that losing Maggie would have been an irreparable loss and that in his eyes and hers, they were still husband and wife. As already stated, while physical separation is necessary for a finding that a spouse is not a surviving spouse for the purposes of EPIC, physical separation alone is insufficient. Because Beatrice only provided evidence of physical separation between Maggie and James and did not refute the evidence tending to show the enduring emotional connections between them, her claim necessarily fails. On the meager record before it, the probate court understandably ruled that Maggie was the surviving spouse of James for purposes of EPIC. The probate court recognized that the couple had not resided together for many years but found that the couple had chosen a separated lifestyle rather than a complete end to their marriage. In the probate court's eyes, the couple's relationship was ongoing and included contact up until James's death. We find no clear error in this factual determination. The probate court could only rule on the evidence before it. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the probate court. It observed that Beatrice had argued solely that Maggie and James were physically separated for more than a year and that this evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Maggie was "willfully absent." We agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion and affirm. V We hold that an individual is not a surviving spouse for the purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) if he or she intended to be absent from his or her spouse for the year or more leading up to the spouse's death. Absence in this context presents a factual inquiry based on the totality of the circumstances, and courts should evaluate whether complete physical and emotional absence existed, resulting in an end to the marriage for practical purposes. The burden is on the party challenging an individual's status as a surviving spouse to show that he or she was "willfully absent," physically and emotionally, from the decedent spouse. Because the Court of Appeals in the present case correctly concluded that Maggie was not "willfully absent" from James in the years leading up to his death, we affirm. We decline to address the remaining issues presented in the application for leave to appeal because we are not persuaded that they should be reviewed by this Court Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Elizabeth T. Clement (except to the extent the opinion addresses whether evidence of physical absence is needed to support a finding that a spouse was willfully absent) Clement, J. (concurring in part). I support the result reached by the majority-the Court of Appeals rightly affirmed the trial court's finding that Maggie was not "willfully absent" from James. I also agree with the majority that the term "willfully absent" is broad enough to encompass emotional absence. But I write separately because I do not support the majority's proposition that "intentional physical absence is necessary" to support a finding that a spouse is "willfully absent" under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ). Ante at ----. This case squarely presents the question whether the term "willfully absent" in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i )"includes consideration of the emotional bonds and connections between spouses," ante at ----, and so it is proper for the majority (and the dissent for that matter) to wrestle with that question. But this case does not present the question whether the term "willfully absent" requires physical absence; nor do the facts of this case allow that proposition to be tested since neither party disputes that Maggie was physically absent from James. See ante at ----; post at ----. In short, the majority's proposition in no way bears on the outcome of this case, and so I view the proposition as obiter dictum. To be fair, a physical-absence requirement is unlikely to cause mischief-I don't doubt that in a typical case, a finding that a spouse was "willfully absent" will be supported by, among other things, record evidence of physical absence. But I would prefer that the majority's proposition become enshrined in law only after we consider a case in which that proposition plays a deciding role. For instance, a surviving spouse also does not include "[a]n individual who is a party to a divorce or annulment proceeding with the decedent at the time of the decedent's death." MCL 700.2801(3)(b). Additionally, a surviving spouse does not include "[a]n individual who, following an invalid decree or judgment of divorce or annulment obtained by the decedent, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third individual." MCL 700.2801(2)(b). See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. The personal representative's duties include settling and distributing the decedent's estate in accordance with EPIC, "as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate." MCL 700.3703(1). In effect, the personal representative is in charge of the day-to-day probate proceedings and is answerable to the court. Although no interested party objected to Beatrice's appointment, allegations later surfaced that Maggie and her children had been misled to believe that Beatrice was not pursuing the position. L. Fallasha and Beatrice denied that charge. We agree with the dissent that there is no meaningful difference between the dictionary definitions cited in this opinion and those cited by the dissent. See post at 323 n. 11. The dissent would prefer to understand "willful" to mean "to make a decision on one's own, without regard to others,", or, as it later characterizes it, to make a "unilateral decision." Post at 327. The dissent argues that this is how the term is commonly understood in the "context of human interaction," because "[l]inguistically, it does not make much sense to think of a person's absence from their spouse under EPIC in terms of whether the absence was 'deliberate' or 'intentional.' " Post at 327. We find this reasoning unpersuasive. After all, although some "deliberate" decisions may not be "unilateral," all "unilateral" decisions are, by their very nature, "deliberate." Moreover, unlike the dissent, we have at least cited caselaw that supports our understanding of willful as an act that is taken with the intent to do something specific. The traditional use of desertion as a ground for divorce has disappeared since the Legislature enacted the no-fault divorce act, 1971 PA 75, in 1971. Sparks v. Sparks , 440 Mich. 141, 156-157, 485 N.W.2d 893 (1992). Since that time, a divorce can be sought on the basis that there has been "a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved." MCL 552.6(1). Nothing more is required. The difference between the two provisions would turn on whether there was an intent to leave and never return as in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(ii ), or simply an intent to leave as in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ). In practice then, if the subsections were both interpreted to involve physical separation only, a party would never need to demonstrate a spouse's intent never to return. It would be simpler just to argue that the spouse intended to leave. The dissent disagrees that MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) would be rendered redundant if the term "absent" were interpreted to encompass only physical absence. See post at ----. Assuming the validity of the law cited by the dissent as it relates to a now-defunct component of domestic-relations law, see note 5 of this opinion, the fact remains that if absence under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) were limited to physical absence, for practical purposes, a party would never need to demonstrate a spouse's intent not to return. See note 6 of this opinion. The dissent accuses us of failing to apply any canon of statutory interpretation in coming to this conclusion. Post at 328- n. 37. It is true that we have not explicitly named the canons in our opinion, and we were unaware that such formulism was necessary to render a proper textualist decision. Yet a careful reading of our opinion and accompanying citations clearly illustrates that we have applied the established rules of interpretation. See, e.g., Robinson , 486 Mich. at 15, 782 N.W.2d 171 ; Griffith , 472 Mich. at 533, 697 N.W.2d 895 ; Jackson , 487 Mich. at 791, 790 N.W.2d 340. Rather than an unworkable focus on how inattentive a spouse must be in order to be "absent" within the meaning of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ), see post at 324 n. 17, instead, the trial court should ascertain whether that spouse has been completely absent from the other, both emotionally and physically. Forfeitures are not favored in law. Miller v. Pond , 214 Mich. 186, 190, 183 N.W. 24 (1921). This general rule supports our conclusion that neither physical nor emotional absence in isolation is sufficient for purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ). Rather, a complete absence is required, both physical and emotional. Despite the dissent's own proclamations to the contrary, there is nothing outlandish about stating that emotional support and communication can be absent from a personal relationship, nor with characterizing one who withholds such support as being emotionally absent from that relationship. The dissent's chosen dictionary definitions do not undermine this point. Cf. post at ---- (stating that dictionaries refer to absence in various ways, including, but not limited to, " '[not] attentive,' " " 'inattentive,' " and " 'paying no attention to' ") (citations omitted). The dissent cites a dictionary that defines the term "absent," in part, in relation to physical proximity. See post at ---- ("[H]eedless; inattentive to persons present or to subjects of conversation in company.") (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, "heedless" can be defined as "INCONSIDERATE" or "THOUGHTLESS," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), the understandings of which are not inconsistent with a finding of physical presence. Contra post at 325 n. 26 ("[O]ne definition requires a person to be physically absent ... while the other, as it pertains to human interaction, requires a person to be physically present ...."). Moreover, other dictionaries define "absent" as merely meaning "inattentive," without regard to whether there is a physical presence. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary ("INATTENTIVE"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.) ("[e]xhibiting or feeling inattentiveness"); The Random House Dictionary of The English Language (2d ed.) ("not attentive; preoccupied; absent-minded"). For this reason, we consider the dissent's insinuation that we are engaging in "definition-shopping" to be extravagant. See post at 326- n. 27 ("There are many ways that 'an uncritical approach to dictionaries can mislead judges.'... Not surprisingly, definition-shopping is high on the list.") (citation omitted). See Yates v. United States , 574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1074, 1081, 191 L Ed 2d 64 (2015) (opinion by Ginsburg, J.) (explaining that dictionary definitions bear consideration in determining the meaning of a word but that they are not always dispositive); id . at ---, 135 S.Ct. at 1092 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (agreeing that dictionary definitions do not control if other textual markers suggest that a different definition is appropriate); see also Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins Co , 490 Mich. 145, 156, 802 N.W.2d 281 (2011) (stating that courts may consult a dictionary to give words their common and ordinary meaning not that they must consult a dictionary or that they must choose a single definition from among many). As the Court of Appeals noted in Harris , "[t]he Revised Probate Code provides that a surviving spouse may elect against the will of his deceased spouse ... and may claim certain allowances from the estate. However, MCL.§ 700.290... states that the rights provided by such statutes are forfeited if the surviving spouse 'did any of the following for 1 year or more previous to the death of the deceased spouse: (a) Was wilfully absent from the decedent spouse.' " Harris , 151 Mich.App. at 783, 391 N.W.2d 487, quoting MCL 700.290 (citations omitted; emphasis added). As can be seen, and as the Court of Appeals in Erwin noted, the language of the now-repealed MCL 700.290 is almost identical to the language of MCL 700.2801. Erwin , unpub. op. at 4. However, we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion in Peterson that the absence described in MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i ) must be continuous for at least a year leading up to the spouse's death. Peterson , 315 Mich.App. at 432-433, 889 N.W.2d 753. We also agree that the statute does not require the surviving spouse to make a continuous effort to maintain the marital relationship. Id . at 434, 889 N.W.2d 753. That is, the inquiry is into whether the surviving spouse did the "absenting," not whether the surviving spouse did enough to prevent the absence. The dissent insinuates that we agree with the Peterson Court on the one hand but disagree with it on the other. See post at 326 n. 28. This misconstrues our position, in which we illustrate that there is a difference between actions taken with the intent to abandon martial rights and actions taken that have the practical effect of ending a marriage regardless of the intent. In other words, 'willful,' as used in this provision, refers to an intent to be completely absent, which effectively results in a practical end of the marriage, regardless of whether the spouse specifically intended to end the marriage when he or she took such action. In earlier proceedings, Beatrice objected to the legitimacy of the evidence relating to the 2010 action against James's employer to reinstate healthcare coverage for Maggie as James's spouse. But we observe that the healthcare case was handled by Beatrice's brother and current attorney, L. Fallasha Erwin, who has freely admitted that he argued in the healthcare case that James and Maggie were still married. We agree with the dissent that the interpretation of a statute is a purely legal question and that statutory interpretation presents a question of law. See post at 322 n. 2. Having defined the statutory term "willfully absent" as meaning complete emotional and physical absence from the marriage, we believe it prudent and perhaps instructive to offer guidance to trial courts that in order to ascertain whether complete absence existed, an inquiry into the facts of the case may be required. Accord post at 329 n. 38 (stating that the dissent would direct the trial court to consider all the facts at its disposal). For this reason, we reject the dissent's accusation that we put the "cart before the horse." Post at 322 n. 2.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On January 23, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the September 7, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. Zahra, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In this case, defendant agreed to develop a part of a building that he owned for plaintiffs Donna and William Walker, who planned to lease the space for their business, Head to Toes Massage Therapy of Oxford, Inc. The agreement was memorialized in a written contract (the letter agreement) that the parties signed. Although the letter agreement provided that defendant would "use all reasonable efforts/expense to obtain a final occupancy permit," defendant experienced continual delays in doing so. After nine months without the necessary occupancy permit, plaintiffs' attorney sent a letter to defendant indicating that they had decided "to terminate their interest in any and all obligations regarding the property." Plaintiffs filed suit, seeking damages resulting from the delay. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs were not entitled to such relief under the terms of the letter agreement. In support of his position, defendant pointed to paragraph 10 of the letter agreement, which specifically outlined the remedies agreed to by the parties, stating: 10. The failure of either party to perform the preliminary duties outlined in this agreement will permit the obligee of the duty to declare a default and terminate this preliminary agreement to lease or other remedy that may be agreed to by the parties. The trial court held that paragraph 10 was clear and unambiguous, granting summary disposition in defendant's favor. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, however, with the majority reasoning that paragraph 10 did not contain any language expressly limiting the parties to the two remedies specified therein. Judge O'BRIEN drafted a partial dissent, in which she opined that the majority's holding effectively rendered paragraph 10 meaningless. I, like Judge O'BRIEN , am persuaded that the panel majority's holding does not comport with the rule against surplusage. That is, "courts must [ ] give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a contract and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory." Paragraph 10 is inartfully drafted with regard to the second remedy, which awkwardly allows for the pursuit of an alternative remedy agreed to by the parties. Nevertheless, considered as a whole, paragraph 10 is clear, concise, and cannot be ignored as surplusage. To hold, as the panel majority has, that the parties in this case were not limited in the remedies available writes paragraph 10 out of the contract entirely. Further, I note the well-established principle that "[i]n interpreting a contract, our obligation is to determine the intent of the contracting parties." "[T]he intent of the contracting parties is best discerned by the language actually used in the contract." It seems peculiar to me that the letter agreement would include a provision that details two specific remedies-neither of which is unique to this manner of contract or these particular circumstances-if the parties did not intend for those remedies to be exclusive. For these reasons, I would peremptorily reverse the decision reached by the Court of Appeals' panel majority and reinstate the trial court's order granting summary disposition. Markman, J., joins the statement of Zahra, J. Walker v. Underwood , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 7, 2017 (Docket Nos. 332129 and 333160), pp. 2-4, 2017 WL 3925551. Id . at 4-5 ( O'Brien , J., dissenting). Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc. , 468 Mich. 459, 468, 663 N.W.2d 447 (2003). Quality Prods. & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc. , 469 Mich. 362, 375, 666 N.W.2d 251 (2003). Rory v. Continental Ins. Co. , 473 Mich. 457, 469-470 n. 21, 703 N.W.2d 23 (2005).

Markman, C.J. At issue here is whether MCL 769.25 violates the Sixth Amendment because it allows the decision whether to impose a sentence of life without parole to be made by a judge, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold that MCL 769.25 does not violate the Sixth Amendment because neither the statute nor the Eighth Amendment requires a judge to find any particular fact before imposing life without parole; instead, life without parole is authorized by the jury's verdict alone. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Skinner and affirm the part of Hyatt that held that "[a] judge, not a jury, must determine whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence or a term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25." People v. Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. 368, 415, 891 N.W.2d 549 (2016). However, we reverse the part of Hyatt that adopted a heightened standard of review for life-without-parole sentences imposed under MCL 769.25 and that remanded this case to the trial court for it to "decide whether defendant Hyatt is the truly rare juvenile mentioned in [ Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) ] who is incorrigible and incapable of reform." Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 429, 891 N.W.2d 549. No such explicit finding is required. Finally, we remand both of these cases to the Court of Appeals for it to review defendants' sentences under the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard of review. I. FACTS AND HISTORY A. SKINNER Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder for acts committed when defendant was 17 years old. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing under Miller , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407, which held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for offenders under 18 years old violate the Eighth Amendment. People v. Skinner , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 21, 2013, 2013 WL 951265 (Docket No. 306903). This Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Skinner , 494 Mich. 872, 832 N.W.2d 237 (2013). On remand, the trial court reimposed a life-without-parole sentence. After defendant was resentenced, MCL 769.25 took effect, setting forth a new framework for sentencing juveniles convicted of first-degree murder. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing under MCL 769.25. People v. Skinner , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 30, 2014 (Docket No. 317892). On remand, the trial court again sentenced defendant to life without parole. In a split, published decision, the Court of Appeals again remanded for resentencing, holding that a jury must decide whether defendant should be sentenced to life without parole and that, to the extent that MCL 769.25 requires the trial court to make this determination, it is unconstitutional. People v. Skinner , 312 Mich. App. 15, 877 N.W.2d 482 (2015). This Court granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and directed the parties to address "whether the decision to sentence a person under the age of 18 to a prison term of life without parole under MCL 769.25 must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt[.]" People v. Skinner , 500 Mich. 929, 929, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017). B. HYATT Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony for acts committed when defendant was 17 years old. Following an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court considered the Miller factors, defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's convictions and would have affirmed his sentence but for Skinner , which held that a jury must decide whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile. People v. Hyatt , 314 Mich. App. 140, 885 N.W.2d 900 (2016). The Court of Appeals declared a conflict pursuant to MCR 7.215(J) and, in a published decision, the conflict panel unanimously disagreed with Skinner and held that a judge may decide whether to impose a nonparolable life sentence on a juvenile. Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 415, 891 N.W.2d 549. However, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant's life-without-parole sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing at which "the trial court must not only consider the Miller factors, but decide whether defendant Hyatt is the truly rare juvenile mentioned in Miller who is incorrigible and incapable of reform." Id . at 429, 891 N.W.2d 549. We directed that oral argument be heard on the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and instructed the parties to address "whether the conflict-resolution panel of the Court of Appeals erred by applying a heightened standard of review for sentences imposed under MCL 769.25." People v. Hyatt , 500 Mich. 929, 929-930, 889 N.W.2d 487 (2017). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Matters of constitutional and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. People v. Hall , 499 Mich. 446, 452, 884 N.W.2d 561 (2016). In analyzing constitutional challenges to statutes, this Court's "authority to invalidate laws is limited and must be predicated on a clearly apparent demonstration of unconstitutionality." People v. Harris , 495 Mich. 120, 134, 845 N.W.2d 477 (2014). We require these challenges to meet such a high standard because "[s]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent." In re Sanders , 495 Mich. 394, 404, 852 N.W.2d 524 (2014), citing Taylor v. Gate Pharm. , 468 Mich. 1, 6, 658 N.W.2d 127 (2003). III. BACKGROUND The issue here involves the interplay between the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment provides, in pertinent part: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and the district wherein the crime shall have been committed.... [ U.S. Const., Am. VI.] The Eighth Amendment provides: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [ U.S. Const., Am. VIII.] Specifically, the issue here is whether Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny require jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt before a sentence of life without parole may be imposed on a person under the age of 18 under MCL 769.25. MCL 750.316(1) provides, in pertinent part: Except as provided in sections 25 and 25a of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.25 and 769.25a, a person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole: (a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. (b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, vulnerable adult abuse in the first or second degree under [ MCL 750.145n ], torture under [ MCL 750.85 ], aggravated stalking under [ MCL 750.411i ], or unlawful imprisonment under [ MCL 750.349b ]. MCL 769.25, which was enacted in the wake of Miller , provides, in pertinent part: (1) This section applies to a criminal defendant who was less than 18 years of age at the time he or she committed an offense described in subsection (2).... * * * (2) The prosecuting attorney may file a motion under this section to sentence a defendant described in subsection (1) to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole if the individual is or was convicted of any of the following violations: * * * (d) Any violation of law involving the death of another person for which parole eligibility is expressly denied under state law. (3) ... If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole for a case described under subsection (1)(b), the prosecuting attorney shall file the motion within 90 days after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section. The motion shall specify the grounds on which the prosecuting attorney is requesting the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. (4) If the prosecuting attorney does not file a motion under subsection (3) within the time periods provided for in that subsection, the court shall sentence the defendant to a term of years as provided in subsection (9). * * * (6) If the prosecuting attorney files a motion under subsection (2), the court shall conduct a hearing on the motion as part of the sentencing process. At the hearing, the trial court shall consider the factors listed in [ Miller v. Alabama ] and may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual's record while incarcerated. (7) At the hearing under subsection (6), the court shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed. The court may consider evidence presented at trial together with any evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. * * * (9) If the court decides not to sentence the individual to imprisonment for life without parole eligibility, the court shall sentence the individual to a term of imprisonment for which the maximum term shall be not less than 60 years and the minimum term shall be not less than 25 years or more than 40 years. In People v. Carp , 496 Mich. 440, 852 N.W.2d 801 (2014), this Court noted that [r]ather than imposing fixed sentences of life without parole on all defendants convicted of violating MCL 750.316, MCL 769.25 now establishes a default sentencing range for individuals who commit first-degree murder before turning 18 years of age. Pursuant to the new law, absent a motion by the prosecutor seeking a sentence of life without parole, the court shall sentence the individual to a term of imprisonment for which the maximum term shall be not less than 60 years and the minimum term shall be not less than 25 years or more than 40 years. [ Id . at 440, 852 N.W.2d 801, quoting MCL 769.25.] A. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis added.) In other words, any fact that "expose[s] the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury's guilty verdict " is an "element" that must be submitted to a jury. Id . at 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). See also Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296, 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ("[T]he 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.") (emphasis altered). In Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the Court held that the jury, rather than the judge, must determine whether an aggravating circumstance exists in order to impose the death penalty. In addition, in Hurst v. Florida , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), the Court held that "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death" and that "[a] jury's mere recommendation [of a death sentence] is not enough" to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. Miller , 567 U.S. at 465, 132 S.Ct. 2455, held that "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.' " (Emphasis added.) Instead, "a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles." Id . at 489, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (emphasis added). The Court indicated that the following factors should be taken into consideration: "[defendant's] chronological age and its hallmark features-among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences"; "the family and home environment that surrounds him-and from which he cannot usually extricate himself-no matter how brutal or dysfunctional"; "the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him"; whether "he might have been charged [with] and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth-for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys"; and "the possibility of rehabilitation...." Id . at 477-478, 132 S.Ct. 2455. Although the Court declined to address the "alternative argument that the Eighth Amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles, or at least for those 14 and younger," it stated: But given all we have said in Roper ,[ ] Graham ,[ ] and this decision about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon. That is especially so because of the great difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham of distinguishing at this early age between "the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." Although we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison. [ Id . at 479-480, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (citation omitted).] Subsequently, in Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), the Court held that Miller applies retroactively to juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided because Miller announced a new substantive rule by rendering life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for a specific class of juvenile defendants. Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (citation omitted). Montgomery noted that Miller indicated that it would be the "rare juvenile offender who exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified" and that " Miller made clear that 'appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.' " Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 733-734, quoting Miller , 567 U.S. at 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455. On this basis, Montgomery concluded: Miller , then, did more than require a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender's youth before imposing life without parole; it established that the penological justifications for life without parole collapse in light of "the distinctive attributes of youth." Even if a court considers a child's age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects " 'unfortunate yet transient immaturity.' " Because Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but " 'the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,' " it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for "a class of defendants because of their status"-that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth. [ Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (citations omitted).] In response to the state's argument that " Miller cannot have made a constitutional distinction between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption because Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child's incorrigibility," the Court stated: That this finding is not required ... speaks only to the degree of procedure Miller mandated in order to implement its substantive guarantee. When a new substantive rule of constitutional law is established, this Court is careful to limit the scope of any attendant procedural requirement to avoid intruding more than necessary upon the States' sovereign administration of their criminal justice systems. See Ford [v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 416-417, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335] (1986) ("[W]e leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences[.]"). Fidelity to this important principle of federalism, however, should not be construed to demean the substantive character of the federal right at issue. That Miller did not impose a formal factfinding requirement does not leave States free to sentence a child whose crime reflects transient immaturity to life without parole. To the contrary, Miller established that this punishment is disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. [ Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735.] The Court concluded that "prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored." Id . at ---- 136 S.Ct. at 736-737. B. MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS The Court of Appeals in Skinner held that MCL 769.25 violates the Sixth Amendment because it allows the decision whether to impose a sentence of life without parole to be made by a judge, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, pursuant to MCL 769.25, "following the jury's verdict and absent a prosecution motion seeking a life-without-parole sentence followed by additional findings by the trial court, the legally prescribed maximum punishment that defendant faced for her first-degree-murder conviction was imprisonment for a term of years." Skinner , 312 Mich. App. at 43, 877 N.W.2d 482. In other words, the jury's verdict only supported a term-of-years sentence. In order to impose a life-without-parole sentence, the trial court has to engage in fact-finding, and this violates defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury because any fact that increases a defendant's sentence must be decided by the jury. The Court of Appeals further held that the statutory maximum penalty for first-degree murder for juveniles cannot be life without parole because this would violate Miller given that, under Miller , a mandatory default life-without-parole sentence for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. Miller requires additional fact-finding before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. More specifically, Miller requires the trial court to find that the defendant is one of those rare juvenile defendants that is irreparably corrupt and incapable of rehabilitation before the trial court can impose a life-without-parole sentence. The Skinner dissent, on the other hand, concluded that there was no Sixth Amendment violation because "neither Miller nor the statute sets forth any particular facts that must be found before a sentence of life without parole may be imposed." Id . at 74, 877 N.W.2d 482 ( SAWYER , J., dissenting). The dissent rejected the majority's conclusion that Miller requires a finding of "irreparable corruption" in order for the Eighth Amendment to allow the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile. Id . at 76, 877 N.W.2d 482. It also rejected the majority's conclusion that MCL 769.25 creates a default term-of-years sentence, at least after the prosecutor moves for a life-without-parole sentence. Id . at 77, 877 N.W.2d 482. In Hyatt , the Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of Appeals dissent in Skinner and therefore declared a conflict with Skinner . The conflict panel also agreed with the Court of Appeals dissent in Skinner . Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 403, 891 N.W.2d 549, held that "[t]he considerations required by Miller 's individualized sentencing guarantee are sentencing factors, not elements that must be found before a more severe punishment is authorized." It held that although "a sentencing judge will necessarily engage in fact-finding during the Miller analysis," this fact-finding will not increase the defendant's sentence beyond that authorized by the jury's verdict because the jury's verdict alone authorizes a life-without-parole sentence. Id . at 406, 891 N.W.2d 549. In other words, "[t]he analysis involving the Miller factors does not aggravate punishment; instead, the analysis acts as a means of mitigating punishment because it acts to caution the sentencing judge against imposing the maximum punishment authorized by the jury's verdict, a sentence which Montgomery cautioned is disproportionate for the vast majority of juvenile offenders[.]" Id . at 409, 891 N.W.2d 549 (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, Hyatt also held that "a sentencing court must begin its analysis with the understanding that life without parole is, unequivocally, only appropriate in rare cases." Id . at 419-420, 891 N.W.2d 549. In addition, with regard to the appellate standard of review, Hyatt held that "the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile requires a heightened degree of scrutiny regarding whether a life-without-parole sentence is proportionate to a particular juvenile offender, and even under this deferential standard, an appellate court should view such a sentence as inherently suspect." Id . at 424, 891 N.W.2d 549. Finally, Hyatt reversed defendant's sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration because although the trial court considered the Miller factors, it did not consider whether Hyatt was "the truly rare juvenile mentioned in Miller who is incorrigible and incapable of reform," which the trial court must do before imposing a life-without-parole sentence. Id . at 429, 891 N.W.2d 549. IV. ANALYSIS A. JUDGE OR JURY These cases present a difficult issue because the pertinent United States Supreme Court opinions are not models of clarity, nor is the Legislature's response to Miller , i.e., MCL 769.25. Under these circumstances, it is especially important to remember that "[s]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent." In re Sanders , 495 Mich. at 404, 852 N.W.2d 524, citing Taylor , 468 Mich. at 6, 658 N.W.2d 127. That is, assuming that there are two reasonable ways of interpreting MCL 769.25 -one that renders the statute unconstitutional and one that renders it constitutional-we should choose the interpretation that renders the statute constitutional. Evans Prod. Co. v. Fry , 307 Mich. 506, 533-534, 12 N.W.2d 448 (1943) ("[I]t is our duty to adopt such a construction, if admissible, which will uphold validity rather than destroy a legislative enactment" and " '[i]n cases of doubt, every possible presumption, not clearly inconsistent with the language and the subject matter, is to be made in favor of the constitutionality of the act.' ") (citation omitted); Grebner v. State , 480 Mich. 939, 940, 744 N.W.2d 123 (2007) ("This Court 'must presume a statute is constitutional and construe it as such, unless the only proper construction renders the statute unconstitutional.' ") (citation omitted); Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson v. City of Jackson , 478 Mich. 373, 408 n. 27, 733 N.W.2d 734 (2007) ("Whenever possible, courts should construe statutes in a manner that renders them constitutional.") In the end, we do not believe that it is "clearly apparent" that MCL 769.25 is unconstitutional. In re Sanders , 495 Mich. at 404, 852 N.W.2d 524. The precise issue here is whether MCL 769.25"removes the jury from the determination of a fact that, if found, exposes the criminal defendant to a penalty exceeding the maximum he would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone" in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 482-483, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis omitted). In other words, "[i]f the jury's verdict alone does not authorize the sentence, if, instead, the judge must find an additional fact to impose the longer term, the Sixth Amendment requirement is not satisfied." Cunningham v. California , 549 U.S. 270, 290, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). Therefore, the pertinent question is whether MCL 769.25 requires the trial court to find an additional fact before it can sentence a juvenile to life without parole or whether the jury's verdict alone exposes a juvenile to a life-without-parole sentence. MCL 769.25 certainly does not expressly require the court to find any particular fact before imposing life without parole and we should not read such a requirement into the statute, especially given that doing so would render the statute unconstitutional because "[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact-no matter how the State labels it-must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." Ring , 536 U.S. at 602, 122 S.Ct. 2428. MCL 769.25(3) does require the prosecutor to file a motion to seek a life-without-parole sentence for a defendant less than 18 years old, and this motion must specify the grounds on which the prosecutor is requesting such a sentence. If such a motion is not filed, the trial court must sentence the juvenile to a term-of-years sentence. MCL 769.25(4) and (9). It is argued that because the "default" sentence is a term-of-years sentence, see Carp , 496 Mich. at 458, 852 N.W.2d 801, anything other than a term-of-years sentence, i.e., life without parole, requires that facts be found by the jury. However, this is too simplistic a view. The real question is whether, for Sixth Amendment purposes, some sort of factual finding is required to go above the "default" sentence. Just because the prosecutor has to file a motion to seek a life-without-parole sentence in order to avoid the default term-of-years sentence does not mean that additional fact-finding is required before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. That is, the mere fact that a term-of-years sentence constitutes the default sentence in the absence of a motion filed by the prosecutor seeking a life-without-parole sentence does not mean that the jury must find additional facts before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. In other words, just because some legislative procedural precondition must be satisfied after the jury renders its verdict before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed does not mean that the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone do not authorize the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence. The critical question is whether additional factual findings have to be made, not whether an additional motion has to be filed. However, MCL 769.25 requires more than that a motion be filed. It also requires the court to conduct a hearing to consider the Miller factors, MCL 769.25(6), and to "specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed," MCL 769.25(7). While the statute does not expressly require any specific finding of fact to be made before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed, it is argued by defendants and the dissent that the statute implicitly requires a finding of fact to be made before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed given that the statute requires the court to specify the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and its reasons supporting the sentence imposed. In other words, although the statute does not expressly state that the trial court must find an aggravating circumstance before it imposes a life-without-parole sentence, it implicitly requires such a finding. While this argument is not unreasonable, it is also not "clearly apparent" that such a finding is required. In re Sanders , 495 Mich. at 404, 852 N.W.2d 524. To begin with, MCL 769.25(6) merely requires the trial court to "consider the factors listed in Miller ...." The following are the factors listed in Miller : (1) "his chronological age and its hallmark features-among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences"; (2) "the family and home environment that surrounds him-and from which he cannot usually extricate himself-no matter how brutal or dysfunctional"; (3) "the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him"; (4) whether "he might have been charged [with] and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth-for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys"; and (5) "the possibility of rehabilitation...." Miller , 567 U.S. at 477-478, 132 S.Ct. 2455. It is undisputed that all of these factors are mitigating factors. Id . at 489, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ("[A] judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.") (emphasis added). That is, these are factors that "counsel against irrevocably sentencing [juveniles] to a lifetime in prison." Id . at 480, 132 S.Ct. 2455. The Sixth Amendment does not prohibit trial courts from considering mitigating circumstances in choosing an appropriate sentence because the consideration of mitigating circumstances does not expose a defendant to a sentence that exceeds the sentence that is authorized by the jury's verdict. In other words, the Sixth Amendment only prohibits fact-finding that increases a defendant's sentence; it does not prohibit fact-finding that reduces a defendant's sentence. Therefore, the requirement in MCL 769.25(6) that the court consider the Miller factors does not violate the Sixth Amendment. MCL 769.25(7), however, requires still more. It requires the court to "specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed." Id . Aggravating circumstances, unlike mitigating circumstances, do have the effect of increasing a defendant's sentence. The question at issue here, however, is whether aggravating circumstances increase a defendant's sentence beyond that authorized by the jury's verdict. The answer to that question is "no," because the trial court does not have to find an aggravating circumstance in order to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. If the trial court simply finds that there are no mitigating circumstances, it can sentence a juvenile to life without parole. There is nothing in the statute that prohibits this. While the statute requires the trial court to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to specify the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed, the court could find that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances and that is why it is imposing a life-without-parole sentence. This demonstrates that a life-without-parole sentence is authorized by the jury's verdict alone. That is, given that the statute does not require the trial court to affirmatively find an aggravating circumstance in order to impose a life-without-parole sentence, such a sentence is necessarily authorized by the jury's verdict alone. And given that a life-without-parole sentence is authorized by the jury's verdict alone, additional fact-finding by the court is not prohibited by the Sixth Amendment. In other words, a factual finding made by the court that an aggravating circumstance exists does not violate the Sixth Amendment because it does not expose the defendant to an enhanced sentence, i.e., a sentence that exceeds the one authorized by the jury's verdict alone. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ("We should be clear that nothing in this history suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise discretion-taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender-in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute.") (emphasis omitted); Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 116, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) ("Our ruling today does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion must be found by a jury. We have long recognized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment."). The United States Supreme Court's "Sixth Amendment cases do not automatically forbid a sentencing court to take account of factual matters not determined by a jury and to increase the sentence in consequence." Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 352, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Instead, "[t]he Sixth Amendment question, the Court has said, is whether the law forbids a judge to increase a defendant's sentence unless the judge finds facts that the jury did not find (and the offender did not concede)." Id . Nothing within MCL 769.25 forbids the judge from imposing a life-without-parole sentence unless the judge finds facts that the jury did not find (and the offender did not concede). In other words, MCL 769.25 does not require the trial court to make any particular factual finding before it can impose a life-without-parole sentence. The next question is whether the Eighth Amendment, under Miller or Montgomery , requires additional fact-finding before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. On the one hand, there is language in both Miller and Montgomery that at least arguably would suggest that a finding of irreparable corruption is required before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. For example, Miller , 567 U.S. at 479-480, 132 S.Ct. 2455, stated: [G]iven all we have said in Roper , Graham , and this decision about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon. That is especially so because of the great difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham of distinguishing at this early age between "the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." Although we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison. [Citations omitted.] This language conceivably could be read to suggest that the sentencer must find that the juvenile offender's crime reflects irreparable corruption before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. However, Miller clarified that it was only holding that "mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment," id . at 470, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (emphasis added), and that "a sentencer [must] have the ability to consider the mitigating qualities of youth," id . at 476, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court expressly stated that Miller "does not categorically bar a penalty for a class of offenders or type of crime...." Id . at 483, 132 S.Ct. 2455. "Instead, it mandates only that a sentencer follow a certain process -considering an offender's youth and attendant characteristics-before imposing a particular penalty." Id . (emphasis added). In other words, Miller simply held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment and that before such a sentence can be imposed on a juvenile, the sentencer must consider the mitigating qualities of youth. Miller thus did not hold that a finding of "irreparable corruption" must be made before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed on a juvenile. As noted earlier, there is also language in Montgomery that arguably would seem to suggest that a finding of irreparable corruption is required before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed. For example, Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 732, 734, held that " Miller announced a substantive rule," rather than a procedural rule, because Miller "did more than require a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender's youth before imposing life without parole; it established that the penological justifications for life without parole collapse in light of 'the distinctive attributes of youth.' " (Citation omitted.) Therefore, "[e]ven if a court considers a child's age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity." Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (quotation marks and citations omitted). In other words, "[b]ecause Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption, it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for a class of defendants because of their status-that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect transient immaturity of youth." Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (" Miller did bar life without parole, however, for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility."). This language could also be read as suggesting that a finding of irreparable corruption or permanent incorrigibility must be made before a life-without-parole sentence can be imposed on a juvenile. However, Montgomery itself expressly stated that this is not the case: " Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child's incorrigibility." Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735. Montgomery further explained: That this finding is not required, however, speaks only to the degree of procedure Miller mandated in order to implement its substantive guarantee. When a new substantive rule of constitutional law is established, this Court is careful to limit the scope of any attendant procedural requirement to avoid intruding more than necessary upon the States' sovereign administration of their criminal justice systems. See Ford [v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 416-417, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335] (1986) ("[W]e leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences."). Fidelity to this important principle of federalism, however, should not be construed to demean the substantive character of the federal right at issue. That Miller did not impose a formal factfinding requirement does not leave States free to sentence a child whose crime reflects transient immaturity to life without parole. To the contrary, Miller established that this punishment is disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. [ Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 (alterations in original).] Given that Montgomery expressly held that " Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child's incorrigibility," id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735, we likewise hold that Miller does not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child's incorrigibility. Montgomery held that while the substantive rule is that juveniles who are not "irreparably corrupt" cannot be sentenced to life without parole, the states are free to develop their own procedures to enforce this new substantive rule. In this sense, the "irreparable corruption" standard is analogous to the proportionality standard that applies to all criminal sentences. See Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 726 ("[A] lifetime in prison is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest of children, those whose crimes reflect 'irreparable corruption.' ") (quotation marks and citations omitted). Just as courts are not allowed to impose disproportionate sentences, courts are not allowed to sentence juveniles who are not irreparably corrupt to life without parole. And just as whether a sentence is proportionate is not a factual finding, whether a juvenile is "irreparably corrupt" is not a factual finding. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require the finding of any particular fact before imposing a life-without-parole sentence, and therefore the Sixth Amendment is not violated by allowing the trial court to decide whether to impose life without parole. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that all the courts that have considered this issue have likewise concluded that the Sixth Amendment is not violated by allowing the trial court to decide whether to impose life without parole. See, for example, State v. Lovette , 233 N.C. App. 706, 719, 758 S.E.2d 399 (2014) ("[A] finding of irreparable corruption is not required...."); State v. Fletcher , 149 So.3d 934, 943 (La App., 2014) (" Miller does not require proof of an additional element of 'irretrievable depravity' or 'irrevocable corruption' "); Commonwealth v. Batts , 640 Pa. 401, 478, 163 A.3d 410, 456 (2017) ("We further disagree with [the defendant] that a jury must make the finding regarding a juvenile's eligibility to be sentenced to life without parole."); People v. Blackwell , 3 Cal. App. 5th 166, 194, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 444 (2016) (" Miller does not require irreparable corruption be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order to 'aggravate' or 'enhance' the sentence for [a] juvenile offender convicted of homicide."); State v. Ramos , 187 Wash. 2d 420, 436-437, 387 P.3d 650 (2017) (" Miller ... does not require the sentencing court ... to make an explicit finding that the offense reflects irreparable corruption on the part of the juvenile."). B. IMPOSITION OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 421, 891 N.W.2d 549, held that "the sentencing court must operate under the notion that more likely than not, life without parole is not proportionate." Hyatt also held that "the trial court committed an error of law by failing to adhere to Miller 's and Montgomery 's directives about the rarity with which a life-without-parole sentence should be imposed." Id . at 428, 891 N.W.2d 549. That is, "[w]hen deciding to sentence defendant Hyatt to life without parole, the trial court focused on the Miller factors[;] [h]owever, the court gave no credence to Miller 's repeated warnings that a life-without-parole sentence should only be imposed on the rare or uncommon juvenile offender." Id . Therefore, the Court of Appeals "reverse[d] defendant Hyatt's sentence and remand[ed] to the trial court for resentencing" and directed the trial court to "not only consider the Miller factors, but decide whether defendant Hyatt is the truly rare juvenile mentioned in Miller who is incorrigible and incapable of reform." Id . at 429, 891 N.W.2d 549. In addition, while Hyatt initially held that "appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion," id . at 423, 891 N.W.2d 549, it subsequently held that "the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile requires a heightened degree of scrutiny regarding whether a life-without-parole sentence is proportionate to a particular juvenile offender, and even under this deferential standard, an appellate court should view such a sentence as inherently suspect," id . at 424, 891 N.W.2d 549. The Court of Appeals stated, "While we do not suggest a presumption against the constitutionality of that sentence, we would be remiss not to note that review of that sentence requires a searching inquiry into the record with the understanding that, more likely than not, a life-without-parole sentence imposed on a juvenile is disproportionate." Id . at 425-426, 891 N.W.2d 549. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' own contention, this sounds tantamount to a presumption against life-without-parole sentences. The Court of Appeals' opinion in Hyatt is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, it held that no factual finding of irreparable corruption must be made and thus that no jury is required. On the other hand, it held that the trial court erred by not explicitly deciding whether defendant is the truly rare juvenile who is irreparably corrupt. We hold that the latter conclusion is erroneous. For the reasons discussed earlier, the trial court is not obligated to explicitly find that defendant is irreparably corrupt. See Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 (" Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding regarding a child's incorrigibility."). The trial court also does not have to explicitly find that defendant is "rare." Indeed, we cannot even imagine how a trial court would go about determining whether a particular defendant is "rare" or not. Miller used the word "uncommon" only once and the word "rare" only once, and when those words are read in context it is clear that the Court did not hold that a trial court must explicitly find that a defendant is "rare" or "uncommon" before it can impose life without parole. Miller , 567 U.S. at 479-480, 132 S.Ct. 2455, stated: [G]iven all we have said ... about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon . That is especially so because of the great difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham of distinguishing at this early age between "the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." Although we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison. [Emphasis added; citations omitted.] The first sentence of this paragraph was simply the Court's prediction that the imposition of life without parole on juveniles will be "uncommon." This is demonstrated by the use of the word "think" rather than "hold." The second sentence simply makes the point that juveniles who are irreparably corrupt are assertedly "rare." And the third sentence makes it clear that all Miller requires sentencing courts to do is to consider how children are different before imposing life without parole on a juvenile. Montgomery quoted Miller 's references to "uncommon" and "rare." In addition, it stated: (1) "Although Miller did not foreclose a sentencer's ability to impose life without parole on a juvenile, the Court explained that a lifetime in prison is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest of children, those whose crimes reflect 'irreparable corruption' "; (2) Miller "recognized that a sentencer might encounter the rare juvenile offender who exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified"; (3) " Miller did bar life without parole, however, for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility"; (4) "After Miller , it will be the rare juvenile offender who can receive that same sentence"; and (5) " Miller drew a line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption." Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 733-734 (quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis added). Again, these statements simply make the point that juvenile offenders who are deserving of life without parole are rare. To begin with, only those juvenile offenders who have been convicted of first-degree murder can be subject to life without parole, which is a small percentage of juvenile offenders. In addition, since Miller , the only juvenile offenders who can be sentenced to life without parole are those who have been convicted of first-degree murder and whose mitigating circumstances do not require a lesser sentence. In other words, Miller and Montgomery simply noted that those juvenile offenders who are deserving of life-without-parole sentences are rare; they did not impose any requirement on sentencing courts to explicitly find that a juvenile offender is or is not "rare" before imposing life without parole. Similarly, neither Miller nor Montgomery imposes a presumption against life without parole for those juveniles who have been convicted of first-degree murder on either the trial court or the appellate court. Miller and Montgomery simply require that the trial court consider "an offender's youth and attendant characteristics" before imposing life without parole. Miller , 567 U.S. at 483, 132 S.Ct. 2455. Indeed, there is language in Montgomery that suggests that the juvenile offender bears the burden of showing that life without parole is not the appropriate sentence by introducing mitigating evidence. Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 736 ("[P]risoners ... must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption...."). Finally, neither Miller nor Montgomery requires this Court to deviate from its traditional abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court's decision to impose life without parole. This Court reviews sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Milbourn , 435 Mich. 630, 636, 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990) ("[A] given sentence can be said to constitute an abuse of discretion if that sentence violates the principle of proportionality, which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender."); People v. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. 453, 471, 902 N.W.2d 327 (2017) ("[T]he standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing a sentence for reasonableness on appeal is abuse of discretion."). This Court has refused to review sentencing decisions de novo. We do not suggest that in the day-in-day-out review of sentencing issues appellate courts should simply substitute their judgment for that of the trial court. Indeed, such de novo review of sentences would be unprecedented in the realm of criminal appeals and at odds with any reasonable construction of the term "abuse of discretion." [ Milbourn , 435 Mich. at 666, 461 N.W.2d 1.] In People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 265, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003), this Court held that a trial court's decision to depart from the guidelines will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. As this Court explained: [T]he trial court is optimally situated to understand a criminal case and to craft an appropriate sentence for one convicted in such a case.... It is clear that the Legislature has imposed on the trial court the responsibility of making difficult decisions concerning criminal sentencing, largely on the basis of what has taken place in its direct observation. Review de novo is a form of review primarily reserved for questions of law, the determination of which is not hindered by the appellate court's distance and separation from the testimony and evidence produced at trial. The application of the statutory sentencing guidelines to the facts is not a generally recurring, purely legal matter, such as interpreting a set of legal words, say, those of an individual guideline, in order to determine their basic intent. Nor is that question readily resolved by reference to general legal principles and standards alone. Rather, the question at issue grows out of, and is bounded by, case-specific detailed factual circumstances. [ Buford v. United States , 532 U.S. 59, 65, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001).] Because of the trial court's familiarity with the facts and its experience in sentencing, the trial court is better situated than the appellate court to determine whether a departure is warranted in a particular case. Accordingly, review de novo, in which a panel of appellate judges could substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court, is surely not the appropriate standard by which to review the determination that a substantial and compelling reason exists to justify a departure from the guidelines range. Instead, the appellate court must accord this determination some degree of deference. .... At its core, an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome. When the trial court selects one of these principled outcomes, the trial court has not abused its discretion and, thus, it is proper for the reviewing court to defer to the trial court's judgment. An abuse of discretion occurs, however, when the trial court chooses an outcome falling outside this principled range of outcomes.... Accordingly, the Court of Appeals must determine, upon a review of the record, whether the trial court had a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the guidelines, recognizing that the trial court was in the better position to make such a determination and giving this determination appropriate deference. The deference that is due is an acknowledgment of the trial court's extensive knowledge of the facts and that court's direct familiarity with the circumstances of the offender. The Court of Appeals is to conduct the thorough review required by MCL 769.34(11), honoring the prohibition against departures not grounded in a substantial and compelling reason. MCL 769.34(3). In doing so, however, the Court must proceed with a caution grounded in the inherent limitations of the appellate perspective. [ Id . at 267-270, 666 N.W.2d 231 (citations omitted).] [ ] The same is true here. The Legislature has imposed on the trial court the responsibility of making the difficult decision regarding whether to impose a sentence of life without parole or a term of years. This decision should be based on the " 'case-specific detailed factual circumstances.' " Id . at 268, 666 N.W.2d 231, quoting Buford , 532 U.S. at 65, 121 S.Ct. 1276. "Because of the trial court's familiarity with the facts and its experience in sentencing, the trial court is better situated than the appellate court to determine" whether a life-without-parole sentence is warranted in a particular case. Babcock , 469 Mich. at 268, 666 N.W.2d 231. "Accordingly, review de novo, in which a panel of appellate judges could substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court, is surely not the appropriate standard by which to review the determination" that a life-without-parole sentence is warranted. Id ."Instead, the appellate court must accord this determination some degree of deference." Id . at 269, 666 N.W.2d 231. "The deference that is due is an acknowledgment of the trial court's extensive knowledge of the facts and that court's direct familiarity with the circumstances of the offender." Id . at 270, 666 N.W.2d 231. The United States Supreme Court has also adopted an abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing a trial court's sentencing decisions. See Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 97, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ("[I]t is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.") (quotation marks and citations omitted); Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) ("[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences ... under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard."). In Gall , 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, the Court expressly rejected the practice of "applying a heightened standard of review to sentences outside the Guidelines range," explaining that this is "inconsistent with the rule that the abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of all sentencing decisions-whether inside or outside the Guidelines range." As Gall explained: The sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import ... in the individual case. The judge sees and hears the evidence, makes credibility determinations, has full knowledge of the facts and gains insights not conveyed by the record. The sentencing judge has access to, and greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant before him than the Commission or the appeals court. Moreover, [d]istrict courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in making these sorts of determinations, especially as they see so many more Guidelines cases than appellate courts do. [ Id . at 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Particularly relevant to the instant case, Gall held that, since Koon , the Court had been "satisfied that a more deferential abuse-of-discretion standard could successfully balance the need to 'reduce unjustified disparities' across the Nation and 'consider every convicted person as an individual.' " Id . at 53 n. 8, 128 S.Ct. 586, quoting Koon , 518 U.S. at 113, 116 S.Ct. 2035. The whole point of Miller is that mandatory life-without-parole sentences with regard to juveniles are unconstitutional and that such mandatory sentencing schemes must be replaced with individualized sentencing schemes. See Miller , 567 U.S. at 465, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ("Such a scheme prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile's 'lessened culpability' and greater 'capacity for change,' and runs afoul of our cases' requirement of individualized sentencing for defendants facing the most serious penalties.") (citation omitted). And the Court has already held that a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard is compatible with a sentencing scheme that considers every convicted person as an individual. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Jefferson , 816 F.3d 1016, 1019 (C.A. 8, 2016) (applying Miller to a 600-month sentence and holding that "[w]e review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard"). Miller called for individualized sentences, and the trial court is in a better position than an appellate court to carry this task out because the trial court will almost always be more familiar with each individual defendant than is an appellate court. Miller 's and Montgomery 's emphasis on the rarity of juveniles deserving of life-without-parole sentences does not counsel against applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. The trial court remains in the best position to determine whether each particular defendant is deserving of life without parole. All crimes have a maximum possible penalty, and when trial judges have discretion to impose a sentence, the imposition of the maximum possible penalty for any crime is presumably "uncommon" or "rare." Yet this Court has never imposed a heightened standard of appellate review, and it should not do so in this instance. V. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we hold that the decision to sentence a juvenile to life without parole is to be made by a judge and that this decision is to be reviewed under the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Skinner and affirm that part of Hyatt that held that "[a] judge, not a jury, must determine whether to impose a life-without-parole sentence or a term-of-years sentence under MCL 769.25." Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 415, 891 N.W.2d 549. However, we reverse the part of Hyatt that adopted a heightened standard of review for life-without-parole sentences imposed under MCL 769.25 and that remanded that case to the trial court for it to "decide whether defendant Hyatt is the truly rare juvenile mentioned in Miller who is incorrigible and incapable of reform." Id . at 429, 891 N.W.2d 549. No such explicit finding is required. Finally, we remand both of these cases to the Court of Appeals for it to review defendants' sentences under the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard. McCormack, J. (dissenting ). There is much in the majority opinion with which I agree. For example, I agree that if MCL 769.25 can reasonably be construed in a constitutional manner, we should so construe it. And I generally agree with the majority's discussion of the applicable legal principles. But I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that there are two reasonable ways of interpreting MCL 769.25, one of which is constitutional. Reading the statute as "murder-plus" would violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny. And I disagree with the majority that reading the statute as "murder-minus" cures all its constitutional deficiencies. In my view, reading the statute as murder-minus renders it unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). Read either way, MCL 769.25 suffers from a constitutional deficiency. I. MURDER-PLUS VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT As the majority thoroughly explains, MCL 769.25 requires a prosecutor and a trial court to take additional steps after a jury has reached a guilty verdict in order for the court to impose a sentence of life without parole (LWOP) on a juvenile offender. The prosecutor must file a motion within the applicable time, the court must conduct a hearing at which it considers the Miller factors, and the court must "specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed." MCL 769.25(7). As the majority appears to recognize, if that last step requires a trial court to make a factual finding beyond that inherent in the jury's verdict before it can impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile, the statute would violate Apprendi and its progeny. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (holding that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury , and proved beyond a reasonable doubt") (emphasis added). The majority concludes that reading the statute as "implicitly" requiring trial courts to find an aggravating circumstance-a fact that increases the sentence beyond that authorized by the jury verdict-before it can impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile is "not unreasonable...." Ante at 304. I agree; it is not. In fact it is the more reasonable reading of MCL 769.25(7). The plain text of that subsection requires a trial court to specify the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it considered and its reasons supporting the sentence imposed. Thus, at minimum when the trial court finds at least one aggravating circumstance as a basis to impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile, the statute violates the Sixth Amendment by allowing the trial court to increase the defendant's sentence on the basis of facts not found by a jury. The majority suggests that a trial court could make no factual findings before imposing an LWOP sentence, revealing there is no Sixth Amendment flaw in the statute. I disagree. MCL 769.25mandates that the court "specify" circumstances considered and "reasons supporting" its sentencing decision as part of the hearing mandated before the court can impose an LWOP sentence on juvenile. It must follow that a failure to abide by the statute-imposing an LWOP sentence on a juvenile without providing such reasons-would result in an invalid sentence. I see no way to conclude that the jury verdict alone authorizes an LWOP juvenile sentence under the statute's plain language. The conflict panel in People v. Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. 368, 405, 891 N.W.2d 549 (2016), erroneously focused on the prosecutor's filing of a motion under MCL 769.25(2) as a significant moment resulting "in the statutory maximum [becoming] life without parole, and the trial court [having] discretion to sentence up to that statutory maximum." The flaw in that argument is that while the filing of that motion opens the door to a potential LWOP sentence for a juvenile, it does not alone establish a sufficient basis for a trial court to impose such a sentence. MCL 769.25(7) does that work. Only if a trial court makes the necessary findings under Subsection (7) does the potential for punishment increase; that is, the potential for increase depends on those findings. It is the court's factual findings made under that subsection, not the prosecutor's filing of a motion under MCL 769.25(2), that "increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum ...." Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Without those findings only a term-of-years sentence is permitted. MCL 769.25(9). MCL 769.25 is not materially distinguishable from the Arizona statute held unconstitutional in Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). In Ring , as here, the statute required the trial court to determine the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Indeed, in Ring the statute provided that first-degree murder " 'is punishable by death or life imprisonment as provided by § 13-703.' " Id . at 592, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (citation omitted). The statute in Ring thus presented the more severe punishment of death as an equally available alternative more explicitly than MCL 769.25 does with LWOP. Yet the United States Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that the defendant had been "sentenced within the range of punishment authorized by the jury verdict." Id . at 604, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The statutes at issue both in Ring and here provided for one punishment based on the jury verdict (in Ring , LWOP; here, a term of years), with an enhanced punishment available only after more proceedings and fact-finding. See also Hurst v. Florida , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 621-622, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ("The analysis the Ring Court applied to Arizona's sentencing scheme applies equally to Florida's. Like Arizona at the time of Ring , Florida does not require the jury to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty. Rather, Florida requires a judge to find these facts."). The majority believes that Ring is distinguishable because the statute in that case expressly required the finding of an aggravating circumstance before the trial court could impose the death penalty and MCL 769.25 does not require such a finding before a trial court can impose LWOP. This distinction lacks significance; in both cases the authority to impose the increased maximum hinges on the trial court's holding a hearing and making additional findings beyond those found by a jury. That MCL 769.25 does not say that a trial court cannot impose LWOP unless it first finds an aggravating circumstance makes the enhanced sentence no less contingent on the trial court's making additional findings. "When a judge's finding based on a mere preponderance of the evidence authorizes an increase in the maximum punishment, it is appropriately characterized as 'a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.' " Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 495, 120 S.Ct. 2348, quoting McMillan v. Pennsylvania , 477 U.S. 79, 88, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). Nor does the fact that the statute does not require a particular factual finding before a trial court may impose LWOP save it from Sixth Amendment peril. Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 399, 891 N.W.2d 549 (finding no Sixth Amendment flaw in MCL 769.25 in part because it is not "a statutory scheme that makes the imposition of life without parole contingent on any particular finding"). This feature simply does not help the statute square with the applicable Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. "Whether the judge's authority to impose an enhanced sentence depends on finding a specified fact (as in Apprendi ), one of several specified facts (as in Ring ), or any aggravating fact (as here), it remains the case that the jury's verdict alone does not authorize the sentence. The judge acquires that authority only upon finding some additional fact." Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296, 305, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Finally, the Hyatt panel's attempt to sidestep the Sixth Amendment flaw in MCL 769.25 because the Miller factors are mere "sentencing factors" rather than elements that a jury must find before the court may impose an LWOP sentence does not help. Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 403, 891 N.W.2d 549. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this label-based distinction because the "inquiry is one not of form, but of effect." Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ; Ring , 536 U.S. at 604, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (quoting Apprendi ). "[T]he fundamental meaning of the jury-trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is that all facts essential to imposition of the level of punishment that the defendant receives-whether the statute calls them elements of the offense, sentencing factors, or Mary Jane-must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt." Ring , 536 U.S. at 610, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (Scalia, J., concurring). The factual findings required by MCL 769.25(7) are essentially a prerequisite to a trial court's ability to sentence a juvenile to LWOP; the statute tells us so. See MCL 769.25(3) through (7) (if the prosecutor moves to have the trial court sentence the defendant to LWOP, the court shall hold a hearing and shall make findings; otherwise the trial court must sentence the defendant to the default term-of-years sentence provided in MCL 769.25(9) ). The court's authority to sentence the defendant to LWOP is not "derive[d] wholly from the jury's verdict." Blakely , 542 U.S. at 306, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Instead, it arises only after the court makes additional factual findings that go beyond the elements of the convicted offense. The effect of those findings is the authority to impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile. So the statutory scheme falls within the Apprendi rule: "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In short, MCL 769.25(9) authorizes a maximum term-of-years sentence for juveniles convicted of the enumerated offenses based solely on the jury's verdict. The remainder of the statute requires motion + hearing + consideration of the Miller factors + a statement of aggravated and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and reasons supporting its sentence before a trial court can impose LWOP on a juvenile. For these reasons, the most reasonable reading of MCL 769.25, reading it as murder-plus, violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution under Apprendi and its progeny. II. MURDER-MINUS VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT But, the majority concludes, even if reading the statute as murder-plus would create a Sixth Amendment obstacle, we need not be concerned. We just read it as murder-minus instead. For the majority this is a reasonable (and constitutional) alternative reading because "the court could find that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances and that is why it is imposing a life-without-parole sentence." Ante at 306. That interpretation, however, suffers from its own constitutional flaw-it violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Miller and Montgomery . In Miller , 567 U.S. at 465, 132 S.Ct. 2455, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles violated the requirement of "individualized sentencing for defendants facing the most serious penalties." The majority's interpretation of MCL 769.25 as murder-minus, or as allowing a trial court to impose a sentence of LWOP without making any additional findings, flouts the individualized sentencing and rigorous inquiry requirements of Miller and Montgomery . The majority disagrees that reading the statute in this way violates Miller because neither Miller nor Montgomery requires a trial court to make a specific factual finding that the juvenile is "irreparably corrupt." It is right about that. See Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 (stating that " Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child's incorrigibility"); but see, e.g., Veal v. State , 298 Ga. 691, 702, 784 S.E.2d 403 (2016) (concluding that Miller and Montgomery require "a specific determination that [a defendant] is irreparably corrupt " before a court may impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile). But it does not follow that the court can find nothing beyond the jury's verdict before it can impose an LWOP sentence. Montgomery stated that the Miller hearing "gives effect to Miller 's substantive holding that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity." Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735. So the majority's observation that Miller did not impose a specific formal fact-finding requirement is beside the point; what matters is that the Eighth Amendment requires some additional finding(s) supporting the legal conclusion that a juvenile's offense is unusual enough to warrant an LWOP sentence before a court may impose such a sentence. Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 ; see also Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 411, 891 N.W.2d 549 ("Viewing the Miller factors as a means of mitigation is not to suggest, however, that life without parole remains the default sentence for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.... Indeed, it is doubtful whether that result could be squared with Miller 's conclusions about the constitutional infirmities inherent in a mandatory life-without-parole sentencing scheme for juveniles."). For this reason, the split of authority in state courts post- Miller on whether a court must make a specific "finding" of irreparable corruption misses the larger point. Before a court can sentence a juvenile to LWOP, the court must make a finding that an LWOP sentence complies with the dictates of Miller (whatever label or form that "finding" takes). And, as discussed later, appellate courts must review that finding de novo because it is a legal conclusion about whether the sentence is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment (while reviewing the underlying facts supporting that "finding" for clear error). Miller requires something beyond merely a finding that all the elements of an offense are proved to sentence a juvenile to LWOP. Instead, "an offender's age" matters in determining the appropriateness of an LWOP sentence, as does "the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to" youth. Miller , 567 U.S. at 476, 132 S.Ct. 2455. The facts necessary to establish the appropriateness of an LWOP sentence for a juvenile are therefore specific to each offender, and the facts found as part of the jury verdict itself therefore will not, standing alone, sustain such a sentence. A murder-minus reading of the statute violates Miller because it is the very Sixth Amendment violation MCL 769.25 creates-requiring the trial court to make additional findings before sentencing a juvenile to LWOP-that the Eighth Amendment requires. Reading the statute as the majority does renders meaningless the individualized sentencing required by Miller by allowing LWOP effectively to serve as the default sentence as long as the prosecutor files the motion required under MCL 769.25(2). After all, if a trial court can simply hold the required hearing, consider the Miller factors, and declare "I find no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, so I sentence the defendant to life without parole," nothing would preclude trial courts from doing so in every case. I cannot see how Miller 's dictates are satisfied by the hollow formality to which the majority's holding would reduce the hearing mandated by MCL 769.25(6). And if that is the result, the statutory scheme necessarily violates the "foundational principle" that "imposition of a State's most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children." Miller , 567 U.S. at 474, 132 S.Ct. 2455 ; see also Landrum v. State , 192 So.3d 459, 460 (Fla., 2016) (holding that "[e ]ven in a discretionary sentencing scheme , the sentencing court's exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender's 'youth and its attendant circumstances' as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014)") (emphasis added). Finally, for what it is worth, the Miller Court's statement that LWOP sentences for juveniles should be "uncommon" is entitled to some weight in analyzing this issue. Miller , 567 U.S. at 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455. Yes, those statements in Miller were a prediction, or dictum, and not a rule of law. But Montgomery made them harder to shrug off. See Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (stating that " Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but 'the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption' ") (quotation marks and citations omitted); id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (stating that " Miller did bar life without parole, however, for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders"); id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 743 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (asserting that "[i]t is plain as day that the majority is not applying Miller , but rewriting it"); see also, e.g., Veal , 298 Ga. at 702, 784 S.E.2d 403 (characterizing Montgomery as further "explain[ing]" Miller 's requirements, including that "by uncommon , Miller meant exceptionally rare "). In my view, interpreting the statute as murder-minus renders it constitutionally flawed under the Eighth Amendment. Instead, I believe that "a faithful application of the holding in Miller , as clarified in Montgomery , requires the creation of a presumption against sentencing a juvenile offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole." Commonwealth v. Batts , 640 Pa. 401, 472, 163 A.3d 410, 452 (2017) ; see also Atwell v. State , 197 So.3d 1040, 1050 (Fla., 2016) (invalidating under the Eighth Amendment a defendant's sentence because he "did not receive the type of individualized sentencing consideration Miller requires"). Because a murder-minus interpretation of MCL 769.25 does not allow for such a presumption, I conclude that the majority's interpretation violates Miller . III. MILLER REQUIRES A HEIGHTENED STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR JUVENILE LWOP SENTENCES Even if I could agree with the majority that MCL 769.25 is constitutional, in my view Miller requires appellate courts to apply a more searching review to juvenile LWOP sentences than our traditional abuse-of-discretion standard. This is so because the review is of the legality of the sentence; if the sentence is illegal, the court has no discretion to impose it. "[I]n the absence of the sentencing court reaching a conclusion, supported by competent evidence, that the defendant will forever be incorrigible, without any hope for rehabilitation, a life-without-parole sentence imposed on a juvenile is illegal, as it is beyond the court's power to impose." Batts , 163 A.3d at 435. Whether a juvenile LWOP sentence is a proper exercise of a sentencing judge's discretion therefore is the wrong inquiry; the correct inquiry is whether such a sentence is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment and Miller . We review constitutional questions de novo. Why would we make an exception to that rule here? And other courts have rightly recognized that de novo review of such sentences is appropriate. "[W]e must review the sentencing court's legal conclusion that [the defendant] is eligible to receive a sentence of life without parole pursuant to a de novo standard and plenary scope of review." Id . ; see also Seats , 865 N.W.2d at 553 (stating that "[w]hen a defendant attacks the constitutionality of a sentence, our review is de novo"); Davis , 2018 WY 40, 415 P.3d at 676 (stating that "we review a constitutional challenge to a sentence de novo"). Such a conclusion is consistent with the majority's discussion of the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard and why we apply it to sentencing decisions in the ordinary course. In People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 268-269, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003), we observed that "[r]eview de novo is a form of review primarily reserved for questions of law" and that "an abuse of discretion standard acknowledges that there will be circumstances in which there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there will be more than one reasonable and principled outcome." But a decision whether a particular sentence satisfies constitutional scrutiny under Miller is precisely the sort of question of law to which there is only one correct answer-the sentence is either constitutional or it is not. There is no room for discretion and therefore no reason for an appellate court to defer to the trial court's decision when reviewing the sentence for Eighth Amendment compliance. As a result, while I disagree with the Hyatt conflict panel's decision to cast the standard of review applicable to juvenile LWOP sentences as a heightened version of the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard, I agree with its bottom line: Appellate courts should apply a less deferential review to juvenile LWOP sentences. I would simply call the standard what it is-de novo review. IV. CONCLUSION I respectfully dissent from each of the majority's holdings. I would conclude that MCL 769.25 is unconstitutional because its most natural reading requires a trial court to make factual findings beyond those found by the jury before it can impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile. I would decline to read the statute not to require such findings before a court can impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile because I believe such a reading violates the Eighth Amendment as the United States Supreme Court has made plain in Miller and Montgomery . Finally, given that the majority holds the statute constitutional, I also dissent from its conclusion that traditional abuse-of-discretion review applies to juvenile LWOP sentences. Whether the sentence is constitutional, like any constitutional question, requires our de novo review. Clement, J., took no part in the decision of this case. The statute at issue in Ring expressly required the finding of an aggravating circumstance before the death penalty could be imposed. Id . at 592, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The sentencing scheme at issue in Hurst required the jury to render an "advisory sentence" of life imprisonment or death without specifying the factual basis of its recommendation. Although the court had the ultimate authority to impose a sentence of life imprisonment or death, if the court imposed death, it had to set forth its findings in support of that decision. Hurst , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 622. In Carp , 496 Mich. at 491 n. 20, 852 N.W.2d 801, this Court noted Miller 's reference to "judge or jury" and indicated that this tend[s] to suggest that Miller did not make age or incorrigibility aggravating elements because under Alleyne [v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) ] aggravating elements that raise the mandatory minimum sentence "must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt[.]" However, because Alleyne was decided after Miller , Miller 's reference to individualized sentencing being performed by a "judge or jury" might merely be instructive on the issue but not dispositive. As none of the defendants before this Court asserts that his sentence is deficient because it was not the product of a jury determination, we find it unnecessary to further opine on this issue and leave it to another day to determine whether the individualized sentencing procedures required by Miller must be performed by a jury in light of Alleyne . [Citation and emphasis omitted.] In Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. In Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for people who committed nonhomicide offenses when they were under the age of 18. Judge Beckering , joined by Judge Shapiro , wrote a concurring opinion in which she expressed her view that "a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender constitutes cruel or unusual punishment in violation of the Michigan Constitution," even though she recognized that this issue was "unpreserved, scantily briefed, and better left for another day." Id . at 430, 891 N.W.2d 549 ( Beckering , J., concurring). Judge Meter , joined by Judges M. J. Kelly and Riordan , agreed with the majority opinion's conclusion that a judge, not a jury, is to determine whether to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. Id . at 447, 891 N.W.2d 549 ( Meter , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). However, he dissented from the majority's review of the judge's decision to impose life without parole and its decision to remand for resentencing. Instead, he would have simply affirmed defendant's sentence. Id . at 448-449, 891 N.W.2d 549. The instant cases are distinguishable from Ring because while the statute at issue in Ring expressly required the finding of an aggravating circumstance before the death penalty could be imposed, MCL 769.25 does not expressly (or otherwise) require the finding of an aggravating circumstance before life without parole can be imposed. As noted earlier, Carp explained that "[r]ather than imposing fixed sentences of life without parole on all defendants convicted of violating MCL 750.316, MCL 769.25 now establishes a default sentencing range for individuals who commit first-degree murder before turning 18 years of age" because "[p]ursuant to the new law, absent a motion by the prosecutor seeking a sentence of life without parole, 'the court shall sentence the individual to a term of [years].' " Carp , 496 Mich. at 458, 852 N.W.2d 801, quoting MCL 769.25(9). A term-of-years sentence is only the "default" under MCL 769.25 when the prosecutor does not file a motion seeking a life-without-parole sentence. Once the prosecutor files such a motion, there is no longer any "default" sentence. Instead, the trial court must then consider the Miller factors and any other relevant factors and exercise its discretion by choosing either a term-of-years sentence or a life-without-parole sentence. Italics added. In addition, MCL 769.25(6) provides that the court "may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual's record while incarcerated." (Emphasis added.) Given that "may" is permissive, In re Bail Bond Forfeiture , 496 Mich. 320, 328, 852 N.W.2d 747 (2014), this language clearly does not require the trial court to engage in fact-finding in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Cf. People v. Lockridge , 498 Mich. 358, 364, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015) (explaining that the statutory sentencing guidelines violate the Sixth Amendment because "the guidelines require judicial fact-finding beyond facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury to score offense variables (OVs) that mandatorily increase the floor of the guidelines minimum sentence range, i.e., the 'mandatory minimum' sentence under Alleyne .") (emphasis altered). In Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 491 n. 16, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Court emphasized the important distinction "between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation," and it explained: If facts found by a jury support a guilty verdict of murder, the judge is authorized by that jury verdict to sentence the defendant to the maximum sentence provided by the murder statute. If the defendant can escape the statutory maximum by showing, for example, that he is a war veteran, then a judge that finds the fact of veteran status is neither exposing the defendant to a deprivation of liberty greater than that authorized by the verdict according to statute, nor is the judge imposing upon the defendant a greater stigma than that accompanying the jury verdict alone. Core concerns animating the jury and burden-of-proof requirements are thus absent from such a scheme. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court does not even view the "mitigating-factor determination" (at least in the context of death penalty cases) to constitute a factual finding. In Kansas v. Carr , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 633, 193 L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), the Court held that mitigating circumstances, unlike aggravating circumstances, do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, it explained that [w]hether mitigation exists ... is largely a judgment call (or perhaps a value call); what one juror might consider mitigating another might not. And of course the ultimate question whether mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances is mostly a question of mercy-the quality of which, as we know, is not strained. [Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 642.] Similarly, in United States v. Gabrion , 719 F.3d 511, 532-533 (C.A. 6, 2013), the Sixth Circuit held that whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances is not a fact that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It explained: Apprendi findings are binary-whether a particular fact existed or not. [18 USC] 3593(e), in contrast, requires the jury to "consider" whether one type of "factor" "sufficiently outweigh[s]" another so as to "justify" a particular sentence. Those terms-consider, justify, outweigh-reflect a process of assigning weights to competing interests, and then determining, based upon some criterion, which of those interests predominates. The result is one of judgment, of shades of gray; like saying that Beethoven was a better composer than Brahms. Here, the judgment is moral-for the root of "justify" is "just." What § 3593(e) requires, therefore, is not a finding of fact, but a moral judgment. [Id . ] For the same reasons, a trial court's decision to impose life without parole after considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not a factual finding, but a moral judgment. This perhaps is the critical point at which we and the dissent disagree. The dissent concludes that because MCL 769.25(7) requires the trial court to "specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court's reasons supporting the sentence imposed," the statute necessarily requires the trial court "to find an aggravating circumstance-a fact that increases the sentence beyond that authorized by the jury verdict-before it can impose [a life-without-parole] sentence on a juvenile...." We respectfully disagree. Although the statute requires the trial court to "specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the trial court," that does not necessarily mean that the trial court must specify an aggravating circumstance before it can impose a life-without-parole sentence upon a juvenile. Rather, that means simply that if the trial court does consider any aggravating (or mitigating) circumstances, it must specify those circumstances on the record. As the Court of Appeals dissent in Skinner noted, that the Legislature did not include any burden of proof in the statute "further supports the conclusion that the statute does not require any particular finding of fact." Skinner , 312 Mich. App. at 74, 877 N.W.2d 482 ( Sawyer , J., dissenting). As the dissent explained: I would suggest that the Legislature did not include a burden of proof out of oversight or a desire to leave it to the courts to fashion one, but because it was unnecessary because the statute does not require anything to be proved. Rather, it only requires consideration of the relevant criteria to guide the trial court in determining the appropriate individualized sentence for the defendant before it. [Id . at 74-75, 877 N.W.2d 482.] In Blakely , 542 U.S. at 309, 124 S.Ct. 2531, the Court explained: Of course indeterminate schemes involve judicial factfinding, in that a judge (like a parole board) may implicitly rule on those facts he deems important to the exercise of his sentencing discretion. But the facts do not pertain to whether the defendant has a legal right to a lesser sentence -and that makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the traditional role of the jury is concerned. [Emphasis altered.] Under Michigan's statutory scheme, in the absence of a finding of an aggravating circumstance, a juvenile does not have a "legal right to a lesser sentence," i.e., a term of years rather than life without parole. Therefore, a judge is not precluded from considering aggravating circumstances in deciding whether to sentence a juvenile to either a term of years or life without parole because both of those sentences are within the range prescribed by Michigan's statutory scheme. Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 726, noted that "Miller required that sentencing courts consider a child's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change before condemning him or her to die in prison." (Emphasis added; quotation marks and citation omitted.) See also id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 733 ("Miller requires that before sentencing a juvenile to life without parole, the sentencing judge take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to lifetime in prison.") (emphasis added; quotation marks and citation omitted). Just as with the similar language in Miller , we do not place too much weight on this language given that Montgomery , as with Miller , was not addressing the Sixth Amendment issue. See note 3 of this opinion. While the dissent agrees with us that "neither Miller nor Montgomery requires a trial court to make a specific factual finding that the juvenile is 'irreparably corrupt,' " it concludes that those cases require "some additional finding(s)," yet it does not identify what specifically that additional finding is other than that the juvenile's offense must be "unusual enough to warrant [a life-without-parole] sentence...." Similarly, in Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of the death penalty on defendants who are intellectually disabled, but it left "to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences." (Quotation marks and citation omitted; alterations in original.) Subsequently, in Schriro v. Smith , 546 U.S. 6, 7, 126 S.Ct. 7, 163 L.Ed.2d 6 (2005), the Court held that "[t]he Ninth Circuit erred in commanding the Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith's mental retardation claim." Although the Court did not expressly hold that a jury trial is not required, it noted that "Arizona had not even had a chance to apply its chosen procedures when the Ninth Circuit pre-emptively imposed its jury trial condition." Id . at 7-8. State and lower federal courts have held that a jury need not decide whether a defendant is intellectually disabled. See, for example, State v. Agee , 358 Or. 325, 364, 364 P.3d 971 (2015), amended 358 Or 749, 370 P.3d 476 (2016) ("[B]ecause intellectual disability is a fact that operates to reduce rather than to increase the maximum punishment permitted by a verdict of guilt, the Sixth Amendment does not require the fact of intellectual disability to be decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."); Commonwealth v. Bracey , 604 Pa. 459, 474, 986 A.2d 128 (2009) ("[T]here is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury on the question of mental retardation."); State v. Hill , 177 Ohio App. 3d 171, 187, 2008-Ohio-3509, 894 N.E.2d 108 (2008) ("[W]e reject the argument that the Apprendi / Ring line of cases requires the issue of an offender's mental retardation to be decided by a jury under a reasonable-doubt standard."); State v. Johnson , 244 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Mo, 2008) ("The Supreme Court's holding in Ring requiring a jury to find statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to the issue of mental retardation" because "[d]etermining a defendant is mentally retarded is not a finding of fact that increases the potential range of punishment; it is a finding that removes the defendant from consideration of the death penalty."); State v. Grell , 212 Ariz. 516, 526, 135 P.3d 696 (2006) ("Ring does not require that a jury find the absence of mental retardation."); Walker v. True , 399 F.3d 315, 326 (C.A. 4, 2005) (A jury does not have to determine whether a defendant is mentally retarded because "an increase in a defendant's sentence is not predicated on the outcome of the mental retardation determination; only a decrease.") (quotation marks omitted); Head v. Hill , 277 Ga. 255, 258, 587 S.E.2d 613 (2003) ("[T]he absence of mental retardation is not the functional equivalent of an element of an offense such that determining its absence or presence requires a jury trial under Ring ."); In re Johnson , 334 F.3d 403, 405 (C.A. 5, 2003) ("[N]either Ring and Apprendi nor Atkins render the absence of mental retardation the functional equivalent of an element of capital murder which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt."). Also somewhat similarly, in Tison v. Arizona , 481 U.S. 137, 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of the death penalty in felony-murder cases unless the defendant himself killed, intended to kill, attempted to kill, or was a major participant in the offense and acted with at least a reckless indifference to human life. In Cabana v. Bullock , 474 U.S. 376, 106 S.Ct. 689, 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986), the Court discussed a case that served as a precursor to Tison , Enmund v. Florida , 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), and held that the offender's role in the offense did not concern guilt or innocence and did not establish an element of capital murder that had to be found by a jury. While Cabana was decided before Apprendi , state and lower federal courts since Apprendi have held that the Sixth Amendment does not require that a jury make the Enmund / Tison findings. See, for example, State v. Galindo , 278 Neb 599, 656, 774 N.W.2d 190 (2009) ("Ring [does] not require a jury determination of Enmund - Tison findings" because "the Enmund / Tison determination is a limiting factor, not an enhancing factor.") (quotation marks and citations omitted); State v. Nichols , 219 Ariz. 170, 172, 195 P.3d 207 (2008) ("[T]he Sixth Amendment does not require that a jury, rather than a judge, make Enmund - Tison findings.") (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also 6 LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th ed.), § 26.4(i), pp. 1018-1019 ("So far, lower courts have rejected arguments to equate the factors which as a matter of Eighth Amendment law are required for death eligibility with elements. The rules in Tison and Atkins have instead been treated as defenses to, not elements of, capital murder."). Finally, as the Court of Appeals explained in Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 411-412, 891 N.W.2d 549 : The consensus in these cases is that when the Eighth Amendment's proportionality requirement has barred imposition of the death penalty because of a certain factor or factors that suggested diminished culpability, the determination of whether those certain factors exist is not one that is subject to a jury determination. Stated differently, the Eighth Amendment prohibitions are considered to be mitigating factors that act as a bar against imposing the statutory maximum penalty, rather than as elements that enhance the maximum possible penalty, and the determination of whether those mitigating factors exist need not, under Apprendi and its progeny, be made by a jury. MCL 769.25 requires trial courts to consider the Miller factors before imposing life without parole in order to ensure that only those juveniles who are irreparably corrupt are sentenced to life without parole. Whether a juvenile is irreparably corrupt is not a factual finding; instead, it is a moral judgment that is made after considering and weighing the Miller factors. See note 11 of this opinion. The Court of Appeals in Skinner , 312 Mich. App. at 49, 877 N.W.2d 482, stated: [I]f, as the prosecution and the Attorney General contend, the "maximum allowable punishment" at the point of defendant's conviction is life without parole, then that sentence would offend the Constitution. Under Miller , a mandatory default sentence for juveniles cannot be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Such a sentence would not be an individualized sentence taking into account the factors enumerated in Miller . Similarly, the dissent contends that "[r]eading the statute as [we do] renders meaningless the individualized sentencing required by Miller by allowing [life without parole] effectively to serve as the default sentence as long as the prosecutor files the motion required under MCL 769.25(2)." However, what the Court of Appeals and the dissent fail to recognize is that Michigan's statutory scheme does not create a mandatory default sentence of life without parole for juveniles. Rather, it authorizes the trial court to sentence a juvenile to life without parole as long as the trial court takes into account the Miller factors. In other words, Michigan's statutory scheme is absolutely consistent with Miller because instead of imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole, it requires the trial court to impose an individualized sentence by requiring the trial court to consider the factors enumerated in Miller . Therefore, contrary to the dissent's suggestion, our interpretation of MCL 769.25 most certainly does not "flout[ ] the individualized sentencing ... requirement[ ] of Miller ...." The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that although a finding of "permanent incorrigibility" is required, this finding can be made by the trial court because "[a] finding of 'permanent incorrigibility' cannot be said to be an element of the crime committed; it is instead an immutable characteristic of the juvenile offender." Id . at 456. As Blackwell put it, " '[I]rreparable corruption' is not a factual finding, but merely 'encapsulates the [absence] of youth-based mitigation.' " Id . at 192 (alteration in original). Judge Meter , joined by Judges M. J. Kelly and Riordan , would not have reversed defendant's sentence and remanded to the trial court for further consideration. Instead, they would have affirmed defendant's sentence of life without parole. Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, referred to this as "the Court's gratuitous prediction." Miller , 567 U.S. at 501, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). See also State v. Valencia , 241 Ariz. 206, 212, 386 P.3d 392 (2016) (Bolick, J., concurring) ("We should treat the Court's forecast that irreparable corruption will not be found in the 'vast majority' of cases as speculative and dictum.... Our system's integrity and constitutionality depend not on whether the overall number of sentences of life without parole meted out to youthful murderers are many or few. They depend primarily on whether justice is rendered in individual cases."). Furthermore, it is difficult to understand what particular insights or data the United States Supreme Court, or any other court, would possess concerning the Miller / Montgomery juvenile populations of this state, much less those of all fifty states, that would sustain such a prediction. Miller 's and Montgomery 's references to "rare" are somewhat analogous to this Court's reference to "exceptional" in People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 257, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003). In Babcock , we stated, " 'the Legislature intended "substantial and compelling reasons" to exist only in exceptional cases.' " Id ., quoting People v. Fields , 448 Mich. 58, 68, 528 N.W.2d 176 (1995). Post-Babcock , we certainly did not require trial courts to explicitly find that a defendant's case was "exceptional" before imposing a sentence outside the statutory sentencing guidelines. Although trial courts are no longer required to articulate substantial and compelling reasons to justify departures, they are still required to articulate "adequate reasons" to justify departures, and such departures are still reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. at 476, 902 N.W.2d 327. As discussed earlier and as also recognized by the dissent, the United States Supreme Court expressly left it to the states to adopt procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. Where the issue is whether those procedures sufficiently satisfy the requirements of the Eighth Amendment, the de novo standard of review is applicable because that is a question of law. However, contrary to the dissent's position, where the issue pertains to the trial court's ultimate decision between a life-without-parole sentence and a term-of-years sentence, the traditional abuse-of-discretion standard of review is applicable. We are not aware of any other situation in this state in which a trial court's sentencing decision is reviewed de novo, and we see no reason why it should be in this particular situation. As discussed earlier, Miller requires individualized sentences and the trial court is in a better position than an appellate court to carry out this task. And Miller requires the trial court to consider such factors as the defendant's maturity, impetuosity, ability to appreciate risks and consequences, ability to deal with police officers or prosecutors, capacity to assist his own attorneys, and possibility of rehabilitation. The trial court is obviously in a far better position than the appellate court to assess such factors, and thus the latter must review the trial court's consideration of these factors and its ultimate decision whether to impose a life-without-parole or a term-of-years sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Although the Court of Appeals in Hyatt erred by adopting a heightened standard of review with regard to the trial court's ultimate decision to impose a sentence of life without parole, it did correctly hold that "[a]ny fact-finding by the trial court is to be reviewed for clear error" and that "any questions of law are to be reviewed de novo...." Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 423, 891 N.W.2d 549. Defendant Hyatt's application for leave to appeal is otherwise denied. I use the term "murder-plus" to mean interpreting the statute to require the trial court to find facts beyond those inherent in the jury verdict before it can impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile. I use the term "murder-minus" to mean interpreting the statute to allow the trial court to impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile based solely on the jury's verdict, without finding any additional facts, and to ratchet downward to impose a term-of-years sentence. The Hyatt panel's focus on the motion permitting a prosecutor to seek an LWOP sentence as increasing the maximum is flawed, Hyatt , 316 Mich. App. at 405, 891 N.W.2d 549, because it is the trial court's authority to impose such a sentence that matters. And even if the prosecutor's filing of a motion under MCL 769.25(2) were considered, it would further support the conclusion that the statute violates the Sixth Amendment. The jury verdict alone does not authorize a sentence of LWOP. As conceded by the prosecutor, LWOP is only available if the prosecutor files a motion seeking an enhanced sentence. Given this statement, I find questionable the majority's assertion that "[w]hether a juvenile is irreparably corrupt is not a factual finding[.]" Ante at 310 n. 18. But I acknowledge that other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., People v. Blackwell , 3 Cal. App. 5th 166, 192, 194, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 444 (2016) (concluding that "irreparable corruption" is not a factual finding, but a "moral judgment"). The United States Supreme Court in Montgomery recognized that there might be more than one procedural way to satisfy its dictates and left it to the states to implement. Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 ("That this finding [of incorrigibility] is not required, however, speaks only to the degree of procedure Miller mandated in order to implement its substantive guarantee.... [T]his Court is careful to limit the scope of any attendant procedural requirement to avoid intruding more than necessary upon the States' sovereign administration of their criminal justice systems."). I read the substantive rule of Miller and Montgomery as: whatever label a state puts on the "finding" a court must make as a procedural matter before it can constitutionally sentence a juvenile to LWOP (whether it be "irreparable corruption" or some proxy of that status), the court must make the finding at least cautiously and at most rarely. Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 (describing "Miller 's substantive holding that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity"); id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 ("Miller drew a line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption."). And of course, states can avoid concerns about what procedural protections are enough to satisfy Miller "by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole." Id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 736. Thus, I cannot accept the majority's and the Hyatt panel's conclusion that there is no Sixth Amendment flaw in MCL 769.25 because the Miller factors all involve mitigating factors, which a jury need not find. What Miller and Montgomery require trial courts to do before imposing an LWOP sentence on a juvenile is explain why the juvenile's offense is the unusual one that warrants it; in other words, why is it worse than the typical juvenile offense? See Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.), p. 236, which defines "aggravating circumstance" as "[a] fact or situation that increases the degree of liability or culpability for a tortious or criminal act"; see also Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 726 (stating that LWOP is inappropriate "for all but the rarest of children, those whose crimes reflect 'irreparable corruption ' ") (citations omitted; emphasis added). So while Miller may require trial courts to consider the mitigating effects of youth in determining an appropriate sentence generally, perhaps the Eighth Amendment requirement includes a finding of aggravation of some kind, whether it is irreparable corruption or something else. It would seem hard to dispute that the Legislature created the motion, hearing, and on-the-record findings requirements in MCL 769.25(3), (6), and (7) precisely to satisfy Miller 's dictates for individualized consideration of juveniles convicted of enumerated crimes. The irony that in doing so, it created a Sixth Amendment problem is not lost on me. But this result is still the one that I read the applicable United States Supreme Court precedent to require given this particular statute. Montgomery 's sharpening of Miller 's requirements also undermines the majority's conclusion that a murder-minus reading of the statute is constitutionally sufficient because it requires sentencing courts to "consider" the Miller factors. Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (stating that "because Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption, it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for a class of defendants because of their status-that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth") (cleaned up). In other words, the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing court to find some facts about a particular juvenile's crime that distinguish it from the typical juvenile offense before it may impose an LWOP sentence. Other state supreme courts have similarly concluded that Miller requires a presumption against imposing LWOP on a juvenile offender. See, e.g., Davis v. State , 2018 WY 40, ¶ 45, 415 P.3d 666, 681 (2018), citing State v. Riley , 315 Conn. 637, 655, 110 A.3d 1205 (2015) ; State v. Seats , 865 N.W.2d 545, 555 (Iowa, 2015). The majority replies by conceding that de novo review applies to questions of law, but denies that a trial court's sentencing decision to impose an LWOP sentence on a juvenile is such a question. That conclusion, frankly, simply ignores that Miller constitutionalized this particular area of law and that Montgomery declared it a substantive, rather than a procedural, rule of law. See Montgomery , 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 736 (stating that "[t]he Court now holds that Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law"); see also id . at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 735 (stating that "[t]he hearing does not replace but rather gives effect to Miller 's substantive holding that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity"). Even the Montgomery primary dissent, albeit begrudgingly, acknowledged this. See id ., 577 U.S. at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 743-744 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (asserting that "the rewriting [of Miller ] has consequences beyond merely making Miller 's procedural guarantee retroactive. If, indeed, a State is categorically prohibited from imposing life without parole on juvenile offenders whose crimes do not 'reflect permanent incorrigibility,'' then even when the procedures that Miller demands are provided the constitutional requirement is not necessarily satisfied. It remains available for the defendant sentenced to life without parole to argue that his crimes did not in fact 'reflect permanent incorrigibility ' ") (emphasis added).

Markman, C.J. (for affirmance). At issue is whether the rebuttable presumption of undue influence is applicable when the decedent's attorney breaches Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.8(c), which generally prohibits an attorney from preparing an instrument giving the attorney or his or her close family a substantial gift. Appellants argue that a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) automatically renders an instrument void, while the appellee attorney argues that, rather than an invalidation of the instrument, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises in these circumstances. After considering the applicable provisions of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq ., and the underlying principles of probate law, it becomes clear to us that a rebuttable presumption applies to these circumstances. And, as we will explain, creating a new per se rule as appellants advocate would not only be contrary to the fundamental principles of probate law and longstanding precedents of this state but would also run afoul of EPIC. Moreover, the adoption of MRPC 1.8(c) has no effect on this conclusion because a breach of this rule, like breaches of other professional conduct rules, only triggers the invocation of the attorney disciplinary process; it does not breach the statutory law of EPIC. For these reasons, we conclude the Court of Appeals correctly held that, in the instant circumstances, existing statutes and caselaw give rise only to a rebuttable presumption of undue influence. I. FACTS AND HISTORY On August 13, 2010, the decedent, Robert Mardigian, executed an amended trust that was prepared by appellee Mark Papazian, and on June 8, 2011, the decedent executed a will prepared by Papazian. The amended trust and will operated to leave the bulk of the decedent's estate to Papazian, who was a close friend of the decedent, and to Papazian's children. On January 12, 2012, the decedent died. Following the decedent's death, Papazian filed an action in the probate court and sought to introduce the amended trust and will. Appellants, who consist of the decedent's brother, two nephews, two nieces, and girlfriend, challenged the introduction of these documents, moving for summary disposition and requesting that the probate court void all gifts to Papazian and his children as a matter of law. Specifically, they argued that the gifts were contrary to public policy under MRPC 1.8(c). The probate court eventually granted summary disposition in favor of the appellants and declined to admit the amended trust and will, explaining that it was "disinclined to enforce" documents that were prepared contrary to the MRPC. Papazian appealed, arguing that Michigan did not recognize a per se bar on testamentary gifts to unrelated attorneys and that a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) supplied a basis only for invoking the attorney disciplinary process, not for automatically voiding a trust or will. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the probate court's order granting summary disposition in favor of appellants. Relying on this Court's decision in In re Powers' Estate , 375 Mich. 150, 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), the majority held that it was "required to remand for further proceedings, in which [Papazian] will be required to overcome the presumption of undue influence arising from the attorney-client relationship in order for the devises left to him and his family to be enforced." In re Mardigian Estate , 312 Mich. App. 553, 559, 879 N.W.2d 313 (2015). Pointing to the fact that Powers had been decided before this Court adopted MRPC 1.8(c), Judge SERVITTO dissented and would have affirmed the probate court's ruling that the gifts to Papazian and his family were void as against public policy. Id . at 570, 879 N.W.2d 313 ( SERVITTO , J., dissenting). Thereafter, appellants sought leave to appeal in this Court. We ordered oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action and directed the parties to address whether this Court should overrule Powers . In re Mardigian Estate , 499 Mich. 973, 880 N.W.2d 785 (2016). Subsequently, we granted the application for leave to appeal and directed the parties to address whether the rebuttable presumption set forth in Powers sufficiently protected a decedent and what role this Court's later adoption of MRPC 1.8(c) should play in the consideration of the issue. In re Mardigian Estate , 500 Mich. 1030, 897 N.W.2d 177 (2017). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial court's decision regarding a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Haksluoto v. Mt. Clemens Regional Med. Ctr. , 500 Mich. 304, 309, 901 N.W.2d 577 (2017). In addition, the resolution of this case requires the interpretation of statutes, which we also review de novo. Id . III. ANALYSIS For the reasons that follow, both the historical framework under which we have analyzed gifts to attorneys and the current statutory framework, which codified the historical framework, require us to uphold Powers and its rebuttable presumption of undue influence, notwithstanding the later adoption of MRPC 1.8(c). A. HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK One of the underlying purposes and policies of EPIC is "[t]o discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property," MCL 700.1201(b) (emphasis added), but this purpose long predates EPIC and is entrenched deeply within the history of this state's probate law. Discovering and giving effect to this intent has been viewed as the foundational standard of probate law for centuries. See, e.g., In re Blodgett's Estate , 197 Mich. 455, 461, 163 N.W. 907 (1917) (citing seventeenth-century jurist Lord Coke for the proposition that a testator's intent constitutes " 'the polar star to guide judges in their determination' "). See also id . at 461, 163 N.W. 907, quoting 4 Kent, Commentaries on American Law (14th ed.), p. 534 (" 'The intention of the testator is the first and great object of inquiry; and to this object technical rules are, to a certain extent, made subservient.' "); Palms v. Palms , 68 Mich. 355, 378, 36 N.W. 419 (1888) (opinion by CHAMPLIN , J.) ("In construing wills, it is well settled that the intent of the testator must be ascertained and carried into effect so far as it legally can be done."); In re Churchill's Estate , 230 Mich. 148, 155, 203 N.W. 118 (1925) ("In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern ...."). At the same time, however, " '[u]ndue influence' exercised upon one who executes a will may become the basis for finding the will invalid if that influence took from the testator his right to freely exercise his discretion in disposing of his property." In re Sprenger's Estate , 337 Mich. 514, 521-522, 60 N.W.2d 436 (1953) (emphasis added). This is because undue influence is "something which destroys the free agency of the testator at the time when the instrument is made, and which, in effect, substitutes the will of another for that of the testator." In re Williams' Estate , 185 Mich. 97, 120, 151 N.W. 731 (1915) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The burden of establishing undue influence has historically reposed with the party asserting it. In re Sprenger's Estate , 337 Mich. at 522, 60 N.W.2d 436 (stating that undue influence "must be proved by the person seeking to have the will declared invalid"). And as this Court has explained: To establish undue influence it must be shown that the grantor was subjected to threats, misrepresentation, undue flattery, fraud, or physical or moral coercion sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency and impel the grantor to act against his inclination and free will. Motive, opportunity, or even ability to control, in the absence of affirmative evidence that it was exercised, are not sufficient. [ In re Karmey Estate , 468 Mich. 68, 75, 658 N.W.2d 796 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Additionally, there are occasions in which a rebuttable presumption of undue influence can arise: The presumption of undue influence is brought to life upon the introduction of evidence which would establish (1) the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the grantor and a fiduciary, (2) the fiduciary or an interest which he represents benefits from a transaction, and (3) the fiduciary had an opportunity to influence the grantor's decision in that transaction. [ Id . at 73, 658 N.W.2d 796 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] This rebuttable presumption has been said to apply to cases in which "a patient makes a will in favor of his physician, a client in favor of his lawyer, or a sick person in favor of a priest or spiritual adviser, whether for his own personal advantage, or for the advantage of some interest of which he is a representative." In re Hartlerode's Estate , 183 Mich. 51, 60, 148 N.W. 774 (1914). For well over a century, this rebuttable presumption has been applied to circumstances in which an attorney drafts a will providing that attorney with a gift from a client. See, e.g., In re Bromley's Estate , 113 Mich. 53, 54, 71 N.W. 523 (1897) ("[A] bequest in favor of an attorney who draws a will is a circumstance arousing suspicion, and raises a presumption more or less strong that undue influence has been exerted ...."). Most significantly, in Powers , this Court specifically discussed the rebuttable presumption of undue influence as it arises when an attorney drafts a will in his or her own favor. The will in Powers had been drafted by an attorney who was married to the decedent's close friend, and it left substantial portions of the decedent's estate to both the attorney and the close friend (i.e., the attorney's wife). In re Powers' Estate , 375 Mich. at 155-157, 134 N.W.2d 148. Powers began by recognizing the inherent ethical misconduct of the attorney: "If any prizes were to be awarded for dismal professional judgment, the proponent here would be in a fair way to be signally recognized." Id . at 157, 134 N.W.2d 148. However, Powers proceeded to explain that the conduct of the attorney was not what was at issue; rather, the issue was whether the will itself was valid. Id . In light of this understanding, the attorney-client relationship was only relevant insofar as it tainted the validity of the will: The issue of the relationship of the attorney and his client, and the attorney and his wife as beneficiaries, is an additional element in the broader concept of undue influence. Essentially it goes to degree of proof necessary to establish prima facie the opportunity for the exercise of undue influence and the ultimate consideration of that question by the trier of the facts .... * * * This will contest is on no different legal and factual basis than any other in our past jurisprudence and we caution court and counsel if the case is retried to confine the testimony to the issues: (1) The well-defined, well-recognized test of the testatrix' competency to execute the testamentary instrument ...; (2) The equally well-defined and well-recognized issue of the exercise of fraud or undue influence in the execution thereof, including any presumption created by the fact that proponent was deceased's attorney and the fact that he drew the instrument .... [ Id . at 157-158, 179, 134 N.W.2d 148 (emphasis added).] As Powers recognized, the focus of the will contest is to determine the decedent's intention and not to judge and discipline the attorney's conduct. Id . at 178, 134 N.W.2d 148 ("The forum in which to test unprofessional conduct of an attorney in this State is adequately supplied in the State Bar grievance procedure. The forum in which not to test it is a jury trial determining testamentary capacity and undue influence."). Thus, that an attorney drafted a will giving a gift in his or her own favor only affects the will contest insofar as that is relevant to the rebuttable presumption of undue influence and the determination by the fact-finder whether such influence had been exerted. In addition, our longstanding caselaw indicates that even when the rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises, "the burden does not rest upon the [proponent of the will] to show that the transaction was free from undue influence." Hill v. Hairston , 299 Mich. 672, 679, 1 N.W.2d 34 (1941). That is, the presumption historically did not shift the ultimate burden of proof to show undue influence. In re Bailey's Estate , 186 Mich. 677, 692, 694, 153 N.W. 39 (1915) ("It is true that a presumption is raised that calls for an explanation, but the burden of proof to show undue influence is not thereby shifted. ... [T]he burden of proof to show undue influence rest[s] upon the contestant, and not the proponent. Such, we think, is the settled law in this State."). See also In re Jennings' Estate , 335 Mich. 241, 244, 55 N.W.2d 812 (1952) (stating that "there is no shifting of the burden of proof under the presumption" and "while it establishes a prima facie case in the absence of testimony on the subject, [the presumption itself] has no weight as evidence, is rebuttable, and cannot be weighed against evidence"). In summary, even when a rebuttable presumption of undue influence has arisen, this Court has held that it does not shift the ultimate burden of proof; rather, that burden always remains with the contestant. This historical framework remains in place today but has now been incorporated through statute rather than existing exclusively in caselaw. B. EPIC FRAMEWORK In 1998, the Michigan Legislature enacted EPIC, which became effective April 1, 2000. 1998 PA 386. As part of EPIC, the Legislature codified the applicable burdens of proof in will disputes in MCL 700.3407(1), which provides in pertinent part: All of the following apply in a contested case: * * * (c) A contestant of a will has the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation. (d) A party has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to a matter with respect to which the party has the initial burden of proof.[ ] As MCL 700.3407(1) shows, the contestant bears the burden of establishing undue influence and this burden of persuasion remains throughout with the contestant. Notably, there are no exceptions in this regard. Accordingly, even where a rebuttable presumption of undue influence has arisen, EPIC still requires that the contestant establish undue influence and that the ultimate burden of persuasion remain with the contestant. These requirements of EPIC are consistent with the historical framework discussed earlier, and the enactment of MCL 700.3407(1) remains in this regard a codification of existing law. Because EPIC and our rules of evidence each require that a will or trust contestant establish undue influence and that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the contestant despite any presumption that may arise, we see no basis to revisit the merits of Powers . Indeed, it may largely be immaterial whether Powers was correctly decided-although we believe that it was-because the Legislature itself subsequently adopted the same historical framework in its enactment of EPIC, which we are bound to follow. C. PER SE APPROACH Appellants now ask us to disregard this historical framework and adopt a per se rule of undue influence under which a testamentary gift to a drafting attorney is automatically void when there has been a breach of MRPC 1.8(c). However, we believe that such an approach is inappropriate for several reasons. First, a per se approach would wholly ignore any genuine consideration of the decedent's intentions , which as noted would violate both a foundational principle of probate law in general and one of EPIC's expressly stated policies. See In re Kremlick Estate , 417 Mich. 237, 240, 331 N.W.2d 228 (1983) ("A fundamental precept which governs the judicial review of wills is that the intent of the testator is to be carried out as nearly as possible."); In re Churchill's Estate , 230 Mich. at 155, 203 N.W. 118 ("In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern ...."); MCL 700.1201(b) (one of the underlying purposes of EPIC is "[t]o discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property"); MCL 700.8201(2)(c) (one of the underlying purposes and policies of the Michigan Trust Code (MTC), which is set forth as Article VII of EPIC, is "[t]o foster certainty in the law so that settlors of trusts will have confidence that their instructions will be carried out as expressed in the terms of the trust"). Under a per se rule of undue influence, any attempt to discern the genuine and bona fide intention of the testator is subordinated at an early juncture to consideration of the attorney's conduct. And thus the "guiding polar star" that is the decedent's intention comes to be diminished in favor of an assessment of the behavior of his or her legal representative. Second, the per se approach is contrary to both MCL 700.3407(1)(c) and MCL 700.3407(1)(d), which respectively provide that a will contestant bears the burden of establishing undue influence and that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the party who had the initial burden of proof, i.e., the contestant. A per se rule of undue influence would altogether nullify these requirements by relieving the contestant of the burden to establish undue influence in circumstances in which the gift has been made to an attorney. For this same reason, the per se approach in the context of a trust challenge would improperly shift the burden of persuasion, contrary to MRE 301. The opinion in support of reversal asserts that a per se rule of undue influence would not abrogate the contestant's burden to show undue influence because "[t]he contestant would have to show that the attorney violated MRPC 1.8(c), which requires showing (1) the attorney drafted the provision leaving himself a gift, (2) the gift was 'substantial,' and (3) the attorney and client were not related." We disagree. Such a showing does not establish undue influence in any meaningful sense; rather, it merely shows that there has been a breach of MRPC 1.8(c). As noted earlier, the precise nature of the "undue influence" necessary to invalidate a will is "something which destroys the free agency of the testator at the time when the instrument is made, and which, in effect, substitutes the will of another for that of the testator." In re Williams' Estate , 185 Mich. at 120, 151 N.W. 731 (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also In re Sprenger's Estate , 337 Mich. at 521-522, 60 N.W.2d 436 (" 'Undue influence' exercised upon one who executes a will may become the basis for finding the will invalid if that influence took from the testator his right to freely exercise his discretion in disposing of his property.") Whether there has been a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) does not address whether the decedent's free agency has been destroyed; it addresses only and obviously whether there has been a breach of MRPC 1.8(c). Third, the issue whether a per se rule of undue influence is appropriate simply boils down, in our judgment, to enacting substantive public policy, which is the responsibility of the Legislature, not this Court. The opinion in support of reversal maintains that the instant opinion "leaves clients vulnerable, rewards unscrupulous attorneys, [and] encourages costly litigation"; however, we believe that the instant opinion best accords both with the law and with longstanding practice under that law , in particular, with its dominant focus on ascertaining the genuine intentions of the testator. In place of that focus, the opinion in support of reversal would introduce an irrebuttable legal presumption under which such intentions would simply be of no consequence in cases in which the presumption applied. Whether the current probate framework is sufficient to protect a decedent requires difficult policy determinations that involve balancing the decedent's intentions with policies sanctioning unethical attorney conduct. And as this Court has explained: As a general rule, making social policy is a job for the Legislature, not the courts. This is especially true when the determination or resolution requires placing a premium on one societal interest at the expense of another: The responsibility for drawing lines in a society as complex as ours-of identifying priorities, weighing the relevant considerations and choosing between competing alternatives-is the Legislature's, not the judiciary's. [ Terrien v. Zwit , 467 Mich. 56, 67, 648 N.W.2d 602 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] If the current policy framework is insufficient to protect a decedent when MRPC 1.8(c) has been breached, and any further inquiry into the decedent's intentions should be compromised or foreclosed, it is the Legislature that ought to make this determination and provide for an appropriate limiting rule. See, e.g., Agee v. Brown , 73 So.3d 882, 886 (Fla. App., 2011) ("The best way to protect the public from unethical attorneys in the drafting of wills ... is entirely within the province of the Florida Legislature."); Sandford v. Metcalfe , 110 Conn. App. 162, 169-170, 954 A.2d 188 (2008) ("[I]t is ill-advised, as a matter of public policy, for an attorney to draft a will in which she is to receive a bequest"; "[t]here is, however, no statute barring an attorney who drafted a testamentary instrument from inheriting by the instrument she drafted"; and "[i]f the law is to be changed to make provision for the situation at hand, it is for the legislature to make the change, not the court."). Fourth, in specific circumstances in which the Legislature has deemed a disposition inappropriate without regard to the decedent's intent, it has invariably provided for an explicit rule that revokes the ordinary disposition. For example, MCL 700.2803(2)(a)(i ) provides, "The felonious and intentional killing or the conviction of the felon for the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the decedent ... [r]evokes ... [a] [d]isposition or appointment of property made by the decedent to the killer or felon in a governing instrument." See also MCL 700.2807(1)(a)(i ) ("Except as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, court order, or contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between the divorced individuals before or after the marriage, divorce, or annulment, the divorce or annulment of a marriage ... [r]evokes ... [a] disposition or appointment of property made by a divorced individual to his or her former spouse in a governing instrument ...."). EPIC provides no such rule for circumstances in which an attorney has drafted a will or trust in his or her own favor, and it would be improper for this Court to adopt such a substantive rule on its own initiative. Paselli v. Utley Co. , 286 Mich. 638, 643, 282 N.W. 849 (1938) ("This court cannot write into the statutes provisions that the legislature has not seen fit to enact."). For these reasons, we conclude that a per se rule of undue influence is untenable and incompatible with the longstanding policies of this state, and it would be inappropriate for this Court sua sponte to adopt such a rule. D. MRPC 1.8 Despite the clear statutory requirements and fundamental concepts of probate law in Michigan, appellants contend that the later adoption of MRPC 1.8(c) favors the implementation of the per se rule. Once again, MRPC 1.8(c) states, "A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee." There are several reasons why the adoption of this rule does not warrant a change in current law or the overruling of our longstanding precedents in regard to the present controversy. First, MRPC 1.8(c) became effective in 1988, which antedated Powers but predated the Legislature's decision to codify the requirements in EPIC that a contestant establish undue influence and that the burden of persuasion remain always with the contestant. That is, our Legislature chose to codify the requirements in EPIC despite the fact that MRPC 1.8(c) already was in place and provided that "[a] lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer ... any substantial gift from a client ...." Therefore, even if it could be explained how the MRPC could alter substantive law-which it cannot for the reasons that follow-the earlier adoption of MRPC 1.8(c) would have no effect on EPIC's later-adopted requirements. Second, MRPC 1.8(c) does not create a basis for voiding a will or trust. Rather, MRPC 1.8(c) merely prohibits a lawyer from preparing "an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client ...." The rule is silent concerning what effect, if any, a breach of the rule has upon the will or trust. This silence is filled by the nonsilence of MRPC 1.0(b), which relevantly provides: Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process . The rules do not, however, give rise to a cause of action for enforcement of a rule or for damages caused by failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule. In a civil or criminal action, the admissibility of the Rules of Professional Conduct is governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence and other provisions of law. [Emphasis added.] In addition to the text itself of MRPC 1.0(b), this provision includes a comment setting forth the fundamental scope of the MRPC, and this comment further asserts that a breach of the MRPC merely constitutes a basis for "invoking the disciplinary process." The comment states: [A] failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process. ... As also indicated earlier in this comment, a violation of a rule does not give rise to a cause of action, nor does it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached. The rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purposes of the rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a rule is a just basis ... for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the rule . Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extradisciplinary consequences of violating such a duty . [Emphasis added; comma omitted.] Thus, as limned in the text of MRPC 1.0 and further explained in its accompanying comment, the remedy for a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) is the "disciplinary process." Breaches of the MRPC just do not give rise to causes of action, and private parties cannot seek to enforce a disciplinary rule. Because MRPC 1.8(c) specifically is silent as to the effect of its breach, and because a breach of the MRPC generally only supplies a basis for invoking the attorney disciplinary process, MRPC 1.8(c) does not bear on the validity of Powers or on the resolution of this case. Third, our caselaw also supports this conclusion by holding that standards of professional conduct do not create or modify substantive law. In People v. Green , 405 Mich. 273, 282, 274 N.W.2d 448 (1979) (opinion by COLEMAN , C.J.), we considered whether a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility could compel a particular ruling on substantive law. The prosecutor in Green had breached disciplinary rule (DR) 7-104(A)(1), which provided that " 'a lawyer shall not ... [c]ommunicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party ....' " Id . at 282-283, 274 N.W.2d 448, quoting DR 7-104(A)(1). The prosecutor interviewed the defendant alone after he had waived his Miranda rights and stated that he wished to speak with the prosecutor without his lawyer present. Id . at 287, 274 N.W.2d 448. The defendant then offered statements that were later used as incriminating evidence at his trial. Id . at 287-288, 274 N.W.2d 448. Defense counsel moved to suppress these statements in part on the ground that the prosecutor had breached DR 7-104(A)(1), but the trial court denied the motion. Id . On appeal, a majority of this Court held that, although the prosecutor had breached a rule of professional conduct stating that he "shall not" engage in such conduct, his breach did not afford a basis for suppression of the evidence obtained. Id . at 293-297, 274 N.W.2d 448. Instead, the lead opinion summarized the difference between the Code of Professional Responsibility and substantive law: [Defendant's] argument rests upon a basic misconception of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The provisions of the code are not constitutional or statutory rights guaranteed to individual persons. They are instead self-imposed internal regulations prescribing the standards of conduct for members of the bar. Although it is true that the principal purpose of many provisions is the protection of the public, the remedy for a violation has traditionally been internal bar disciplinary action against the offending attorney. The sanctions available are by no means trivial. The attorney faces permanent disbarment. In these respects the provisions of the code are no different from the provisions found in the codes of conduct for other professions, such as medicine or architecture. They are all self-governing, in-house regulations. The admissibility of evidence in a court of law, on the other hand, is normally determined by reference to relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, applicable court rules and pertinent common-law doctrines. Codes of professional conduct play no part in such decisions. [ Id . at 293-294, 274 N.W.2d 448.] Accordingly, under Green , a breach of a standard of professional conduct "standing alone should be dealt with by bar disciplinary action rather than" by allowing the breach to affect the substantive legal decisions of a case. Id . at 294, 274 N.W.2d 448. For these reasons, a breach of the MRPC merely constitutes grounds for invoking the attorney disciplinary process. The rules of professional conduct promulgated by this Court should neither overrule nor give rise to substantive law. Therefore, the adoption of MRPC 1.8(c), which occurred before the Legislature enacted the current probate framework of this state under EPIC, has no effect on either governing law in this case or on the proper resolution of this matter. See Green , 405 Mich. 273, 274 N.W.2d 448. See also, e.g., In re Bloch , 425 Pa. Super. 300, 310, 625 A.2d 57 (1993) ("To the extent that the [attorney's] conduct is challenged as unethical behavior violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(c), our Supreme Court has held that enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not extend itself to allow courts to alter substantive law or to punish an attorney's misconduct."). IV. REMAINING ISSUES Independent of the undue-influence analysis, appellants argue that the will and the trust here should be held automatically void because their "purposes" ran contrary to "public policy." MCL 700.7404 provides that "[a] trust may be created only to the extent its purposes are lawful, not contrary to public policy, and possible to achieve." Furthermore, MCL 700.7410(1) provides that "a trust terminates to the extent ... the purposes of the trust ... are found by a court to be unlawful or contrary to public policy." EPIC does not contain any similar provision for wills. However, even if EPIC contained such a provision, appellants' overall argument fails because (a) it ignores the distinction between the purpose of a will or trust and the manner in which these are formed and (b) automatically invalidating a will or trust for a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) continues to give insufficient regard to the critical countervailing policy consideration: discerning and giving faithful effect to the decedent's intentions. Here, the "purposes" of the will and the trust were to bestow a gift to a friend, which in no way is at odds with public policy. Appellants fail to cite any genuine public policy that runs contrary to the purposes of this will and this trust, but instead merely take issue with the manner in which these instruments were formed, and thus their public policy arguments are flawed. Additionally, appellants argue that MRPC 1.8(c) sets forth an "indicator" of public policy-see Terrien , 467 Mich. at 67 n. 11, 648 N.W.2d 602 ("We note that, besides constitutions, statutes, and the common law, ... rules of professional conduct may also constitute definitive indicators of public policy.")-and therefore that a breach of MRPC 1.8(c) renders a will and trust void on public policy grounds. At the same time, appellants fail even to mention the strong countervailing public policy considerations regarding the decedent's intentions. Our common law and our statutes may be considered the truest indicators of public policy, see id . at 66-68, 648 N.W.2d 602, and that common law and those provisions of EPIC strongly favor the discernment and effectuation of the decedent's intentions. MCL 700.1201(b) (providing that EPIC shall be applied "[t]o discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property"); MCL 700.8201(2)(c) (providing that the MTC shall be applied "[t]o foster certainty in the law so that settlors of trusts will have confidence that their instructions will be carried out as expressed in the terms of the trust"); Kremlick , 417 Mich. at 240, 331 N.W.2d 228 ("A fundamental precept which governs the judicial review of wills is that the intent of the testator is to be carried out as nearly as possible."). In summary, appellants' public policy arguments are without merit because the "purposes" of the instruments in dispute are not contrary to public policy and because their per se approach fails entirely to consider even the most dominant countervailing public policy considerations set forth in EPIC, namely the decedent's intentions. V. CONCLUSION Among the underlying purposes and policies of EPIC, reflected deeply within our state's caselaw, is the discernment and effectuation of the decedent's intentions in the distribution of his or her property. Indeed, the "guiding polar star" in probate law is that the intentions of the decedent control in this regard. The per se rule of undue influence advocated by appellants would foreclose at some juncture any further consideration of these intentions in favor of an assessment of the behavior of the decedent's attorney. Appellants' per se rule would run contrary to the foundational principles of probate law, longstanding precedents of this state, and the express provisions of EPIC that require the contestant to bear the burden of establishing undue influence. And the adoption of MRPC 1.8(c), which occurred well before our Legislature enacted EPIC, has no effect on our conclusion in this case because a breach of the MRPC is exclusively a basis for invoking the attorney disciplinary process and does not override the substantive law of EPIC. Therefore, we respectfully reject the approach advocated by appellants, endorse the rebuttable presumption of undue influence articulated in Powers , and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in this opinion. Brian K. Zahra Elizabeth T. Clement The ethical code that governs every member of the State Bar of Michigan categorically forbids a lawyer from drafting a will for a client that leaves the lawyer a substantial gift. Yet this Court's outdated precedent enables a lawyer to do so anyway. To be sure, that precedent requires the lawyer to show no undue influence was applied to his client. But that showing is required after the client has passed away, giving the lawyer a consequential evidentiary advantage. The affirming opinion's decision to affirm this precedent leaves clients vulnerable, rewards unscrupulous attorneys, encourages costly litigation, and moreover does not account for the important shifts of the past half-century in our ethics rules, probate law, and evidentiary presumptions. Not all undue influence is equally pernicious: A lawyer who drafts a testamentary instrument that leaves the lawyer a substantial gift in flagrant violation of the professional code of ethics is unique among conflicted beneficiaries in will contests, as she is both an author and beneficiary of the will. To respond, an effective tool is needed. I would overturn In re Powers' Estate , 375 Mich. 150, 134 N.W.2d 148 (1965), to the extent that it held that courts should apply a mere presumption of undue influence to a will contest where an attorney has drafted a testamentary document that names himself as a beneficiary. That particular equitable remedy may have been sufficient before significant changes to our ethics code, the law of probate, and our approach to presumptions. But it is no longer sufficient to protect the public. I would therefore replace it with a per se rule of undue influence that voids substantial testamentary gifts to attorney-drafters. Those who draft wills should not benefit from them. We owe the public better. I would reverse the Court of Appeals. I. ANALYSIS A. GOVERNING LAW The Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq ., the statutory framework that governs testamentary transfers, was enacted so that "a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property" could be "discover[ed] and [made] effective[.]" MCL 700.1201(b). Thus, the "fundamental precept which governs the judicial review of wills is that the intent of the testator is to be carried out as nearly as possible." In re Kremlick Estate , 417 Mich. 237, 240, 331 N.W.2d 228 (1983). The same applies to trust documents. In re Maloney Trust , 423 Mich. 632, 639, 377 N.W.2d 791 (1985). To determine the decedent's intent, we read a testamentary document as a whole and, when it contains no ambiguity, enforce it as written. Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia , 312 Mich. App. 684, 693-694, 880 N.W.2d 269 (2015). I agree with the affirming opinion that a court must do all in its power to carry out the testator's intent. That's the whole point: when someone has potentially exerted undue influence on a decedent, courts can no longer be sure that the testamentary instrument, the end product of that alleged influence, accurately reflects the testator's intent. In re Sprenger's Estate , 337 Mich. 514, 521-522, 60 N.W.2d 436 (1953) ; Detroit Bank & Trust Co. v. Grout , 95 Mich. App. 253, 274-276, 289 N.W.2d 898 (1980). Testamentary gifts that result from undue influence are void. To establish undue influence, contestants of a testamentary document must show more than mere opportunity: they must show that the testator " 'act[ed] under such coercion, compulsion, or constraint that his own free agency is destroyed. The will or the provisions assailed does not truly proceed from him. He becomes the tutored instrument of a dominating mind ....' " In re Balk's Estate , 298 Mich. 303, 309, 298 N.W. 779 (1941), quoting In re Williams' Estate , 185 Mich. 97, 118, 151 N.W. 731 (1915) (cleaned up). Generally, the burden of proof rests with the contestant alleging undue influence. MCL 700.3407(1)(c) ; Kar v. Hogan , 399 Mich. 529, 539, 251 N.W.2d 77 (1976) ; In re Kramer's Estate , 324 Mich. 626, 634-635, 37 N.W.2d 564 (1949). But this Court has long applied a different framework when an attorney drafts a testamentary instrument for her own benefit. In those cases, we recognized as early as 1897 that the attorney's palpable self-interest "arous[es] suspicion, and raises a presumption more or less strong that undue influence has been exerted ...." Donovan v. Bromley , 113 Mich. 53, 54, 71 N.W. 523 (1897). Ten years later, we reiterated that it was "generally recognized by the profession as contrary to the spirit of its code of ethics for a lawyer to draft a will making dispositions of property in his favor, and this court has held that such dispositions are properly looked upon with suspicion." Abrey v. Duffield , 149 Mich. 248, 259, 112 N.W. 936 (1907). The presumption of undue influence, as applied to attorney-drafter-beneficiaries, is the same presumption that applies whenever a testator favors a fiduciary. Powers , 375 Mich. at 180-181, 134 N.W.2d 148 (opinion by SOURIS , J.). The presumption arises upon the introduction of evidence which would establish (1) the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the grantor and a fiduciary, (2) the fiduciary or an interest which he represents benefits from a transaction, and (3) the fiduciary had an opportunity to influence the grantor's decision in that transaction. [ Kar , 399 Mich. at 537, 251 N.W.2d 77.] That is, the presumption is no different for an attorney-drafter-beneficiary or another fiduciary-beneficiary, despite the attorney's unique role in preparing the questionable instrument and plain ethical violation in drafting it. We last examined this presumption against an attorney-drafter in In re Powers , more than half a century ago. Maybe it made sense then. For the reasons that follow, I believe it is time to reconsider it. B. THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESUMPTION In my view, the affirming opinion's decision today to affirm the rebuttable presumption for attorney-drafters fails the testator while protecting the lawyer. To begin, the rebuttable presumption is easily surmountable. The presumption does not change the ultimate burden of proof, which rests with the party alleging undue influence. Id . at 538, 251 N.W.2d 77. Its function "is solely to place the burden of producing evidence on the opposing party," Widmayer v. Leonard , 422 Mich. 280, 289, 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985), but the presumption "has no weight as evidence ... and cannot be weighed against evidence," In re Jennings' Estate , 335 Mich. 241, 244, 55 N.W.2d 812 (1952) ; see also In re Cotcher's Estate , 274 Mich. 154, 159, 264 N.W. 325 (1936) (" '[B]ut, if [the presumption is] challenged by rebutting evidence, the presumption cannot be weighed against the evidence. Supporting evidence must be introduced, and it then becomes a question of weighing the actual evidence introduced, without giving any evidential force to the presumption itself.' "), quoting Gillett v. Mich. United Traction Co. , 205 Mich. 410, 414, 171 N.W. 536 (1919). In other words, it allows the benefitting party the opportunity to satisfy the burden of persuasion to avoid a directed verdict. Widmayer , 422 Mich. at 289, 373 N.W.2d 538. But the opposing party can rebut the presumption with "sufficient" evidence. Kar , 399 Mich. at 542, 251 N.W.2d 77 ; In re Peterson Estate , 193 Mich. App. 257, 262, 483 N.W.2d 624 (1991). Overcoming the presumption is hardly a challenge given this modern construction. And applying the presumption against attorney-drafters (as contrasted with other beneficiary-drafters) ignores the unique status of the attorney. The Powers court missed this, stating: Whether proponent [i.e., the attorney] used questionable professional judgment in drawing the instrument involved need not be retried; it is irrelevant. Proponent's status as a member of the bar of Michigan adds not one centimeter, nor subtracts one from his position as a party litigant, and this question should take no time in trial. [ Powers , 375 Mich. at 176, 134 N.W.2d 148.] That's not right. The prospect of discerning testator intent when the attorney-drafter is compromised is far harder than for other compromised drafters. Evidence of testator intent is most commonly located in the testamentary document itself and the mind of the attorney who drafted it. While the first is ordinarily the best evidence of intent, Karam v. Law Offices of Ralph J. Kliber , 253 Mich. App. 410, 424, 655 N.W.2d 614 (2002), where there is a possibility that the document was the product of undue influence, it is of little use. In such a case an attorney-drafter's testimony would be the next surest evidence of intent, given that she was intimately involved with the testator in producing the instrument; indeed, when an attorney-drafter is not the beneficiary of a contested instrument, her testimony can be critical to a court trying to assess testator intent where undue influence on the part of a fiduciary is alleged. See, e.g., Jennings' Estate , 335 Mich. at 244, 55 N.W.2d 812 ("The presumption was held to have been rebutted and overcome by a showing that the will had been executed after independent legal counsel in [various cases.]"); In re Grow's Estate , 299 Mich. 133, 140, 299 N.W. 836 (1941) (noting only that while a presumption might have arisen, the testator "had independent advice of Mr. Phillips, an attorney of Pontiac, in the preparation of his will"). But much like the corrupt instrument, an attorney-beneficiary's ethical violation and conflicted position make him not a reliable source. The affirming opinion seems to presume that that information is easily knowable. But that's exactly the problem. It's not. If we could readily determine Mr. Mardigian's intent, there would be no need for this appeal. But it is precisely because our precedent allows attorneys to draft wills for their own benefit that difficult situations like this arise and courts must resolve matters without the most reliable evidence of testator intent. I don't know how the affirming opinion can be so sure what Mr. Mardigian's intent was. That's the problem unique to attorney-drafter beneficiaries. C. PER SE UNDUE INFLUENCE RULE Because I agree with the affirming opinion that protecting testator intent is our goal, I would adopt a per se rule of undue influence for attorney-drafters. Such a rule ensures that the drafting attorney will be a reliable witness in the search for the testator's true intent. It would make it easier to determine the testator's intent; when a client wants to leave his lawyer a substantial gift the lawyer simply will have an independent lawyer counsel the client and draft the instrument. While a rebuttable presumption might have been a sufficient equitable remedy in a different era, changes in the law and our ethics code make it not much protection at all today. Courts have equitable powers over the settlement of an estate. MCL 700.1302 and MCL 700.1303. And they have equitable powers to address cases of fraud. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 473 Mich. 562, 590, 702 N.W.2d 539 (2005). "Undue influence is a species of fraud," and the rules of fraud therefore apply to questions of undue influence. Adams v. Adams (On Reconsideration) , 276 Mich. App. 704, 710 n. 1, 742 N.W.2d 399 (2007). Courts may apply equitable powers to preserve the integrity of the judiciary as well. Stachnik v. Winkel , 394 Mich. 375, 382, 230 N.W.2d 529 (1975). The Powers presumption was an appropriate equitable tool for its time, but it now should receive an update: a testamentary instrument produced by an attorney-beneficiary should be seen as one that has resulted from undue influence. Full stop. Generally, to prove undue influence, " '[m]otive, opportunity, or even ability to control' " is insufficient. In re Karmey Estate , 468 Mich. 68, 75, 658 N.W.2d 796 (2003), quoting Kar , 399 Mich. at 537, 251 N.W.2d 77. Instead, "affirmative evidence" must be shown. Id . I would hold that a lawyer who drafts testamentary instruments in violation of MRPC 1.8(c) has provided that "affirmative evidence." I reach this conclusion after careful consideration of the substantial changes in the law and in our ethics rules since Powers , the need to harmonize probate law and our ethics code, and the special circumstances that set attorneys apart from other fiduciaries. I don't share the affirming opinion's concerns about a per se rule. First, the idea that a per se rule would somehow usurp the role of the Legislature rests on a flawed premise; the suggestion that EPIC has somehow codified the Powers presumption is simply not correct. For one thing, the Legislature provided "undue influence" as a basis to invalidate a will, MCL 700.3407(1)(c), but it has not defined the term. Nowhere does it mandate a "rebuttable presumption" as the standard for assessing undue influence, whether for attorneys or anyone else. Rather, this Court invented that doctrine. Donovan , 113 Mich. at 54, 71 N.W. 523. 1. CHANGES TO LAW SINCE POWERS Powers was decided in a different legal world. The rules of professional conduct, probate law, and our approach to rebuttable presumptions have all changed significantly since 1965. Considered together, those changes require an updated approach to our old rule if we are serious about protecting the public in this context. a. ETHICS RULES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT Bear with me; this part is a bit of a slog. Over the last century or so, a sea change has occurred in how the legal profession views and operationalizes its ethics rules. When this Court first introduced the presumption of undue influence in the context of an attorney-beneficiary of an estate at the end of the nineteenth century, there was no formal code of ethics governing lawyers; only personal morality and specific statutes governed lawyer conduct. See Niehoff, In the Shadow of the Shrine: Regulation and Aspiration in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct , 54 Wayne L Rev. 3, 5-6 (2008) ; Wolfram, Toward a History of the Legalization of American Legal Ethics-II The Modern Era , 15 Geo. J Legal Ethics 205, 206 (2002) ("The early history of American legal ethics gave no indication that lawyers would one day become a highly regulated profession. For the most part, regulation was highly traditional, episodic, and reactive, and was addressed primarily to pathological extremes of lawyer behavior."). If attorney conduct was regulated, it was case by case in litigation. 1 Hazard et al., The Law of Lawyering (4th ed.), § 1.08, p. 1-29. And "[p]rior to the late 1800's there were no conflict of interest rules as such[.]" Flamm, Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Law: Causes and Cures (2015), p. 30. Alabama produced the nation's first ethical code in 1887, and the ABA built upon that code when it issued the 1908 Canons of Ethics. Hazard, Law of Lawyering at §§ 1.09 and 1.10, pp. 1-31, 1-32. Even where adopted, however, the Canons did not have the force of law, and ethics opinions interpreting the Canons did not even bind the parties to the case. Id . at § 1.10, p. 1-32. Instead, the Canons were merely aspirational and offered vague statements "set forth in courtly prose rather than in the style of black letter law, and ... [speaking] more to matters of etiquette than legal obligation or professional duty." Id . So they had little in common with enforceable rules, as they were too broad and general to guide behavior meaningfully, Strassberg, Taking Ethics Seriously: Beyond Positivist Jurisprudence in Legal Ethics , 80 Iowa L Rev. 901, 907-908 (1995), and were rarely invoked, Wolfram, Toward a History of the Legalization of American Legal Ethics-I. Origins , 8 U Chi. L Sch. Roundtable 469, 485 (2001). None of the Canons specifically addressed self-interested attorney-drafters. de Furia, Jr., Testamentary Gifts from Client to the Attorney-Draftsman: From Probate Presumption to Ethical Prohibition , 66 Neb. L Rev. 695, 699 (1987). In 1935 this Court first tried to codify the ethical responsibilities of members of the State Bar. That year the Court adopted the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. The 32 Canons, like the ABA's 1908 Canons, were typically abstract, aspirational, and short on notice of prohibited conduct. See In the Shadow of the Shrine , 54 Wayne L Rev. at 6-7. Relevant to this appeal, only Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics advised bar members on how to handle trust property. Canon 11, the amended version of which the Court adopted in 1938, provided in full: Dealing with Trust Property. The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.[ ] Canon 11 therefore only advised that lawyers "should refrain" from actions taking advantage of their client's confidence; it did not explicitly prohibit a lawyer from receiving a gift under a testamentary instrument the lawyer drafted. What is more, the Court adopted no detailed or functional grievance procedure. Under these rules, an attorney who drafted a will to which she was a beneficiary suffered no consequences. For one example, the State Bar's Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics issued an ethics opinion on this topic in 1948. Opinion 112, 1948, 29 Mich. State Bar J 141 (1950). The attorney who was the subject of the opinion was indebted to his client and drafted the client's will discharging the attorney of all debt. Id . Citing our older opinions on the topic, the Committee stated that it could not "assume that the lawyer had improper motives," but "the circumstances are such as to place him in a most unfavorable light." Id . at 142. The Committee concluded that an attorney here could not ethically draft such a will. Id . at 142-143. But the upshot of the opinion was only that the Bar received some theoretical instruction on ethics; the unnamed attorney presumably remained debt-free. This was the professional-rules backdrop against which the question we decide here was last considered in Powers . A lot happened next. In 1971, this Court tried to provide additional guidance to the profession by adopting parts of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association, issued two years earlier. The ABA Code contained aspirational "Ethical Considerations," one of which suggested somewhat tepidly that a lawyer should usually not accept a testamentary gift if the lawyer drafted the testamentary instrument. But once again, the Ethical Considerations did not create enforceable rules. And we did not adopt the Ethical Considerations but only the Canon statements and associated Disciplinary Rules. See Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons , 385 Mich. lvi, lvi-xc (1971). Neither the Disciplinary Rules nor the Canon statements contained any rule governing a lawyer who drafts a testamentary instrument under which the lawyer takes a gift. Things changed in an important way with the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Responsibility in 1983. Professor Geoffrey Hazard, Jr., the reporter for the ABA commission that produced the Model Rules, stated that the ethical rules should establish " 'the lawyer's legal obligations and not [be] expressions of hope as to what a lawyer ought to do.' " Peters, Note, The Model Rules as a Guide for Legal Malpractice , 6 Geo. J Legal Ethics 609, 611 (1993), quoting Hazard, Jr., Legal Ethics: Legal Rules and Professional Aspirations , 30 Clev. St. L Rev. 571, 574 (1982). In other words, the rules should have some teeth. See generally Painter, Rules Lawyers Play By , 76 NYU L Rev. 665, 668 (2001) ("The evolution of professional responsibility rules in the last century reveals several important trends. First, codes have migrated away from broad standards and toward clearly defined rules."). That view was reflected in the report of the ABA commission that drafted the Rules. The commission's "objective ... was to produce rules of professional conduct that preserve fundamental values while providing realistic, useful guidance for lawyer conduct in an environment that finds the profession and the practice of law, like American society itself, undergoing significant change." ABA Comm. on Evaluation of Prof Standards, Report to the House of Delegates (June 30, 1982), p. 1. The report also noted that the then-effective Model Code left many "gaps in what should be a comprehensive statement of professional standards." Id . A lawyer who consults the ethical rules, the committee observed, should have "reliable guidance as well as fair warning and fair limitation." ABA Comm. on Evaluation of Prof Standards, Report to the House of Delegates (January, 1982), p. 4. The Rules, then, were meant to eliminate flimsy aspirational ideals and draw (at least some) clear lines. In the Shadow of the Shrine , 54 Wayne L Rev. at 10. And, relevant here, Model Rule 1.8(c) prohibited an attorney from drafting a testamentary document leaving herself a substantial gift. To be sure, this general approach of mandatory rules marked a fundamental change. See generally Zacharias, Specificity in Professional Responsibility Codes: Theory, Practice, and the Paradigm of Prosecutorial Ethics , 69 Notre Dame L Rev. 223, 223 (1993) ("Over time, the professional codes governing lawyer behavior have become statutory in form. Modern codes increasingly tell lawyers how they must act."); Hazard, The Future of Legal Ethics , 100 Yale L J 1239, 1241 (1991) ("[The ethical] norms have become 'legalized.' The rules of ethics have ceased to be internal to the profession; they have instead become a code of public law ...."). In 1988, this Court adopted Model Rule 1.8(c), along with many others, when it promulgated the current version of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). For the first time, Michigan's professional rules specifically addressed a lawyer's obligations when preparing a testamentary gift: A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee.[ ] We have not amended MRPC 1.8(c) since its adoption. The affirming opinion today gives these changes short shrift: these important changes in the rules governing lawyers, and specifically MRPC 1.8(c), should force us to rethink the Powers presumption. Ethical principles have always undergirded suspicions about testamentary gifts to an attorney-drafter. See Abrey v. Duffield , 149 Mich. 248, 259, 112 N.W. 936 (1907). When the governing ethics principle was a squishy recommendation, a rebuttable presumption was an appropriate equitable response. When Dr. Lunette Powers' attorney drafted his client's will to leave a substantial gift to the attorney's wife, he violated no clear ethical rule, as there was none. But attorney Papazian drafted his client's will and trust in clear violation of MRPC 1.8(c). His transgression is simply of a different kind and scope than that of Dr. Powers' attorney. And that difference means the Powers presumption should no longer be the appropriate equitable tool for determining undue influence. The resulting will or trust is the fruit of the ethical transgression. And so, when an attorney seeks to enforce his or her ethically prohibited work product, a court is put in the position of essentially aiding the swindle. See Succession of Cloud , 530 So.2d 1146, 1150 (La., 1988) ("When an attorney enters into a contract with his client in direct and flagrant violation of a disciplinary rule and a subsequent civil action raises the issue of enforcement (or annulment) of the contract, this court, in order to preserve the integrity of its inherent judicial power, should prohibit the enforcement of the contract which directly contravenes the Code adopted by this court to regulate the practice of law."). In a closely related context, we have declined to allow courts to be conscripted into unethical enterprises. Indeed, we have endorsed the view that it is nonsensical for courts to uphold unethical fee agreements when those agreements will subject the attorney to discipline for violating our professional rules. See Abrams v. Susan Feldstein, P.C. , 456 Mich. 867, 569 N.W.2d 160 (1997) (reversing and agreeing with the Court of Appeals dissent). The Court of Appeals has followed suit. See, e.g., Evans & Luptak, PLC v. Lizza , 251 Mich. App. 187, 196, 650 N.W.2d 364 (2002) (quoting Judge GRIFFIN 's dissent in Abrams for the proposition that it would be " 'absurd' " to allow an attorney to enforce a fee agreement forbidden under our ethics rules); Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Election Comm'rs , 299 Mich. App. 86, 91-93, 832 N.W.2d 392 (2012) (noting that "courts have the authority and obligation to take affirmative action to enforce the ethical standards set forth by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct" and therefore refusing to enforce a contract violating the ethical rules). The same principles should require courts to strike down testamentary gifts to an attorney-drafter. b. OTHER RELEVANT CHANGES IN THE LAW Not surprisingly, change has also come to our probate laws in the 60-plus years since we decided Powers . Indeed, the entire legal system governing probate has gone through two series of significant changes that introduced and modified an informal probate procedure. The affirming opinion does not address these changes at all, but I find them critical. In 1978, the Legislature developed "independent" probate as an alternative to supervised probate. 1978 PA 642, art 1, § 7 (codified at 1979 CL 700.7). Independent probate favored less court supervision than supervised probate-the approach in place at the time of Powers . Id . (defining "independent probate" as "probate designed to operate without unnecessary intervention by the probate court as provided in article 3"); Foster & Zack, Informal Estate Proceedings in Michigan (2000), p. 1-1 (noting that "the probate register," and not the court, "made decisions and signed documents throughout independent proceedings from commencement to the certificate of completion"). This alternative was retained, with modifications, as "informal" probate in our present system, EPIC, 1998 PA 386, § 3301 (codified at MCL 700.3301 ). Informal proceedings are the process "for probate of a will or appointment of a personal representative conducted by the probate register without notice to interested persons." MCL 700.1105(b) ; see also MCL 700.3301 (describing procedures for informal probate). Formal proceedings, by contrast, take place before a judge and require notice to interested persons. MCL 700.1104(h). These changes created and normalized probate processes with diminished judicial involvement and oversight. In addition to the changes to probate law, our approach to rebuttable presumptions in the broader civil context has changed. A few months before we decided Powers , we held that a rebuttable presumption itself could sometimes be weighed as evidence. In re Wood Estate , 374 Mich. 278, 294, 132 N.W.2d 35 (1965). A jury had to be instructed to apply a presumption unless it was rebutted. In other words, under this view "the presumption is 'evidence,' to be weighed and considered with the testimony in the case." 2 McCormick, Evidence (7th ed.), § 344, p. 699. This gave the presumption greater effect and turned it into a "burden shifting device: Once the presumption was established, the burden shifted to the opponent to establish that the presumed fact was not true. Moreover, even if rebutted, the presumption was to be presented to the jury as a conditional mandatory inference." 1 Mich. Court Rules Practice, Evidence (3d ed.), § 301.2, p. 171. But in Widmayer v. Leonard , we rejected this approach to presumptions and established the weaker presumption rule discussed above. Widmayer , 422 Mich. at 289, 373 N.W.2d 538. Thus, the presumption no longer has evidentiary weight and can be rebutted by "sufficient" evidence. Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia , 312 Mich. App. 684, 701, 880 N.W.2d 269 (2015). When it is, the presumption drops out of the case and does not shift the burden of persuasion. 2 McCormick, § 344, p. 692 ("[T]he only effect of a presumption is to shift the burden of producing evidence with regard to the presumed fact. If that evidence is produced by the adversary, the presumption is spent and disappears."); 1 Mich. Court Rules Practice, § 301.2, p. 172 ("Presumptions do not shift the burden of persuasion."). Presumptions under this approach have thus been described as "not very significant at all." Benson, Michigan Rule of Evidence 301, I Presume , 87 Mich. B J 34, 36 (Aug. 2008) ; see also 2 McCormick § 344, p. 694 (noting that this approach is criticized for "giving to presumptions an effect that is too 'slight and evanescent' ") (citation omitted). In other words, the work that the presumption could be counted on to do when Powers was decided is diminished considerably. The combination of these changes is a boon to the unethical lawyer. The probate system is easier to navigate without court involvement. And decreased judicial oversight means it is less likely that unscrupulous lawyers are found out; it is easier for them to escape with their testamentary boodle. And if they are questioned, the rebuttable presumption of yesterday is a far lower hurdle to clear for today's lawyers than it was in 1965 for Dr. Powers' lawyer. The affirming opinion does not explain why a court-fashioned rule that made sense before these changes still makes sense. 2. ADVANTAGES OF A PER SE UNDUE INFLUENCE RULE In my view these changes in the law underscore why attorney-beneficiary instruments should be prohibited. A per se rule would harmonize probate law and MRPC 1.8(c), and get courts out of both the difficult business of struggling to discern testator intent when the primary sources are unreliable and the distasteful business of approving attorneys' ethical workarounds. Harmonizing these rules is also efficient. A rebuttable presumption forces the parties into a messy undue influence battle in probate court. Inefficiencies multiply when a party aggrieved by the lawyer's misconduct seeks restitution in a parallel grievance proceeding. The result is nasty, poor, brutish, and long. This case illustrates the point: litigation has been ongoing since February 2012, roughly one dozen law firms have been involved so far, and its documentary record fills five-and-a-half boxes and spans many thousands of pages. Although the parties dispute whether Mardigian intended to leave his estate to his family or his attorney, surely he did not intend to create that acrimony. But acrimony is inevitable given the current conflicting rules. And so contests become Dickensian parody. The framers of Rule 1.8(c) presaged this concern. During debates, the ABA voted down a proposal by the New York Bar to make Rule 1.8(c) a flexible rule by amending it to state that a lawyer "ordinarily" should not draft such instruments. ABA, A Legislative History: The Development of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 1982-2005 , p. 187. The ABA instead doubled down, making the Rule unwaivable by clients, unlike many other rules, and by providing that the conflict of interest it creates is imputed to all members of a lawyer's firm. See Hazard, Law of Lawyering at § 13.14, p. 13-32. The reason for these exacting prophylactic rules was to "reduce even the possibility of later recriminations or a later will contest that could frustrate the client's intentions." Id . A per se rule of undue influence would accomplish the same goals. And it would restore some dignity to the oft-maligned legal profession. Instead the affirming opinion says on the one hand that a lawyer is prohibited from preparing a testamentary instrument that leaves a substantial gift to herself and then permits its enforcement when the corrupt instrument is challenged. I am deeply troubled that the opinion leaves in place a rebuttable presumption regime that provides a roadmap for unethical attorneys. II. CONCLUSION Over a century ago this court recognized that an attorney who drafts a client's will leaving himself a substantial gift presented a special problem for a court whose job it is to protect the testator's intent. In my view, changes in the law and in the rules governing the conduct of lawyers make the historical remedy this court adopted to handle this problem-a rebuttable presumption of undue influence-no longer sufficient to protect the public. Yes, lawyers who violate their ethical duties to clients can be punished in the disciplinary process. But that only solves part of the problem. Because I agree with the affirming opinion that testator intent is paramount, I would update our equitable remedy to ensure that intent is respected. Our equitable remedy can and should reflect the updates to the relevant substantive law and ethics rules. In not doing so, the court protects compromised lawyers over the public. I would have reversed the Court of Appeals. David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Wilder, J., took no part in the decision of this case because he was on the Court of Appeals panel. MRPC 1.8(c) states, "A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee." Similarly, "[a] trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence." MCL 700.7406. Although the MRPC was not in existence at the time of Powers , an attorney drafting a will who had undertaken to make a gift in his or her own favor was nonetheless well recognized as unethical decades before Powers . As the concurring justice in Powers explained: [T]his Court almost 60 years ago bluntly warned the profession against such conduct, in [Abrey v. Duffield , 149 Mich. 248, 259, 112 N.W. 936 (1907) ]: By statute, a bequest to a subscribing witness, necessary for proving the will, is declared absolutely void (CL 1897, § 9268), and this, though the subscribing witness may be and generally is ignorant of the contents of the will. Although there is no statute to invalidate a bequest to a scrivener, the reasons are, at least, as strong for such a statute as in the case of the subscribing witness. I believe it to be generally recognized by the profession as contrary to the spirit of its code of ethics for a lawyer to draft a will making dispositions of property in his favor, and this Court has held that such dispositions are properly looked upon with suspicion. [Powers , 375 Mich. at 181, 134 N.W.2d 148 ( Souris , J., concurring).] As this Court explained in Widmayer v. Leonard , 422 Mich. 280, 289, 373 N.W.2d 538 (1985), although a presumption itself should not be weighed as evidence, the inferences drawn from the facts creating the presumption may be weighed as evidence: [T]he function of a presumption is solely to place the burden of producing evidence on the opposing party. It is a procedural device which allows a person relying on the presumption to avoid a directed verdict, and it permits that person a directed verdict if the opposing party fails to introduce evidence rebutting the presumption. Almost all presumptions are made up of permissible inferences. Thus, while the presumption may be overcome by evidence introduced, the inference itself remains and may provide evidence sufficient to persuade the trier of fact even though the rebutting evidence is introduced. But always it is the inference and not the presumption that must be weighed against the rebutting evidence. The term "burden of proof" encompasses two distinct concepts: (1) the burden "of producing evidence, satisfactory to the judge, of a particular fact in issue"; and (2) "the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the alleged fact is true." 2 McCormick, Evidence (7th ed.), § 336, p. 644. The latter burden, which can be referred to as "the risk of nonpersuasion," has been described as follows: "It marks ... [t]he peculiar duty of him who has the risk of any given proposition on which parties are at issue,-who will lose the case if he does not make this proposition out, when all has been said and done."Id . at 644 n. 4 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alterations in McCormick). Although there is no specific EPIC provision that sets forth the applicable burden of proof for trust contests, the burden of establishing fraud or undue influence reposes in the party who asserts it even outside the context of wills, see Hill , 299 Mich. at 678-680, 1 N.W.2d 34 (holding that in a challenge to an inter vivos gift, the burden lies with the contestant to show undue influence and that the rebuttable presumption of undue influence does not shift that burden), and the rules of evidence further provide a framework that is consistent with how MCL 700.3407(1) treats presumptions and the ultimate burden of persuasion for wills: In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. [MRE 301.] Accordingly, under MRE 301, we believe that the same framework employed for wills is also appropriate in trust disputes. We are aware of no policy that would counsel any different standard. In addition to the fact that MCL 700.3407(1) plainly evidences the codification of existing law, commenters have concurred in this proposition: Under former Michigan Law, burdens of proof were addressed by case law. This statutory statement is intended to restate existing law without change. This provision [i.e., MCL 700.3407(1) ] indicates that the presumption of undue influence (which often arises in cases in which there was a confidential relationship between the decedent and another who benefits from the will) does not change the ultimate burden of persuasion; it only shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. [Martin, Estates and Protected Individuals Code with Reporters' Commentary (ICLE, 2001), at 177.] The opinion in support of reversal asserts that the instant citation constitutes a "novel use of legislative history." However, we do not rely on the above to confer meaning upon EPIC; it is merely cited as consistent with what we have argued the text already shows. The opinion in support of reversal states, "Because I agree with the affirming opinion that protecting testator intent is our goal, I would adopt a per se rule of undue influence for attorney-drafters." (Emphasis added). Respectfully, we simply do not understand what this means. A per se rule effectively and completely forecloses any opportunity for a fact-finder to discover the testator's genuine intentions. The opinion in support of reversal responds that the instant opinion "seems to presume that [the decedent's intent] is easily knowable. But that's exactly the problem. It's not." What we have said specifically, and what we now add in response, is as follows: (a) the decedent presumably knew his own intent and had every reason to assume that that intent would matter in probate; it does not to the other opinion; (b) of course, it is true that neither this Court, nor likely anyone else, knows the decedent's intent with the clarity and certainty with which the decedent himself knew that intent; (c) nonetheless, our legal system does presume that such intent is "knowable"; it is presumably made "knowable" by what is characterized as "evidence," in particular, evidence concerning the language of the will and evidence of relevant surrounding circumstances; (d) if, as the other opinion asserts, the "exact" problem is that the decedent's intent is not "knowable," then it is difficult to understand what fundamental premises inform the probate process in this case; (e) ascertaining the decedent's intent here should proceed as it does in all other cases in which there are questions concerning the decedent's intent and by the same standards; there are often complications when it becomes necessary to look beyond the four corners of a will to discern intent, but courts nonetheless undertake in these circumstances, to the best of their ability, to discern intent; and (f) however difficult or imperfect the probate process may sometimes be-no one has suggested that it involves an "easy" determination in this case-the instant opinion has as its standard of inquiry the discernment of Robert Mardigian's intent and the other opinion does not. The Code of Professional Responsibility preceded the adoption of the MRPC. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Chief Justice Coleman authored the lead opinion with only Justice Ryan joining the opinion in full; however, a majority agreed with its reasoning that a breach of the code did not bear on the admissibility of evidence. The Chief Justice ultimately concluded that the exclusionary rule did not apply and rejected the notion that a breach of the code affected substantive law. Justice Williams , joined by Justice Fitzgerald , wrote separately, agreeing with the lead "opinion that the prophylactic exclusionary rule need not, and should not, be extended to cover this case." Id . at 296, 274 N.W.2d 448 ( Williams , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). They further agreed that a breach of the code did not compel the exclusion of the evidence. Justice Williams and Justice Fitzgerald noted that courts could refer attorneys to the bar for disciplinary action to deter wrongful conduct and thus dissented in part because they would have "order[ed] the Clerk to report the assistant prosecuting attorney's action in this matter to the grievance authorities for appropriate action." Id . at 297, 274 N.W.2d 448. As a result, a majority of the Court agreed that, although the prosecutor had breached a standard of professional conduct that prohibited him from engaging in certain conduct, the breach did not dictate the substantive law. Although the opinion in support of reversal asserts that "there is no need to resort to public policy because our Court has long had the power to establish the law of fraud," it analogizes the instant case to those in which courts have found unethical fee-splitting contracts between attorneys to be unenforceable on the basis of "public policy." Such an analogy fails to fully appreciate the distinction between contracts and wills and trusts. As the Court of Appeals usefully explained: In the case of a contract deemed void as against public policy because it violates the MRPC, it is principally the drafting lawyer who suffers the consequence of the invalid contract. However, when a trust or will is deemed void as against public policy because the drafting attorney violated the MRPC, the invalidation of the bequest potentially fails to honor the actual and sincere desires of the grantor. [In re Mardigian Estate , 312 Mich. App. at 564, 879 N.W.2d 313.] In addition, as we have noted earlier, the problematic nature of the instant will and trust arises from the manner in which these two instruments were formed, not from their purpose . Moreover, with respect to fraud, the opinion in support of reversal does not acknowledge the longstanding principle that "[f]raud cannot be presumed, but must be proved." Brown v. Dean , 52 Mich. 267, 271, 17 N.W. 837 (1883). See also Goldberg v. Goldberg , 295 Mich. 380, 384, 295 N.W. 194 (1940) ("The burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it. Fraud is never presumed, nor is it to be lightly inferred.") (citations omitted). A per se rule of undue influence, however, does exactly that: it presumes the existence of fraud or, more specifically, the existence of undue influence while discharging the contestant's affirmative responsibility to establish that the decedent's free agency has been abrogated. EPIC provides for the invalidation of trusts produced by undue influence, see MCL 700.7406 ("A trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence."), and the same rule has been applied to wills, see In re Anderson Estate , 353 Mich. 169, 172, 91 N.W.2d 356 (1958) ("Undue influence exercised upon one who makes a will may become the basis for finding the will invalid, if by reason of that influence the right of the testator to freely exercise his discretion in disposing of his property has been taken away from him."). See also MRE 301 ("In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by statute or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party whom it was originally cast."). I note, however, that there is an open question on what a party must show to rebut the presumption. See, e.g., In re Mortimore Estate , 491 Mich. 925, 813 N.W.2d 288 (2012) ( Young , C.J., dissenting). A treatise section on probate drafting recommends that attorneys "interview the prospective testator alone, or at least not in the presence of anyone who could have a possible interest in disposition of the property, as to his or her desires." 12 Mich. Pleading & Practice (2d ed.), § 99:48, p. 466; see also In re Hayes' Estate , 255 Mich. 338, 345, 238 N.W. 245 (1931) (noting, without a hint of concern, that the "will was prepared in the office of a reputable attorney after a private consultation with testator"). When the lawyer herself is the beneficiary, it is impossible for her to interview her client outside the presence of an interested party. And the threat of undue influence is heightened if the attorney-beneficiary consults the client alone. That following best practices would lead to worse outcomes signals that these instruments are inherently problematic. I emphatically reject the affirming opinion's assertion that the testator's intent does not matter to me. It is possible that application of a per se rule might defeat the testator's intent in this case; but it is also possible that the affirming opinion's approach will have that result. But the per se rule I advocate below would end this practice, making it much easier to determine the testator's intent in future cases. The affirming opinion is concerned that a per se rule would obviate the contestant's burden to show undue influence. Not so. The contestant would have to show that the attorney violated MRPC 1.8(c), which requires showing (1) the attorney drafted the provision leaving himself a gift, (2) the gift was "substantial," and (3) the attorney and client were not related. Once these facts are established the per se rule would take over. This basic framework is no different than invalidating a will after the contestant proves it was signed upon the threat of violence. But it is true that the burden for a litigant contesting an instrument that benefits a drafting attorney would not be the same as with other fiduciary beneficiaries. As it should be. Because I would overrule Powers directly and rely on our equitable authority to establish a new rule, I decline to address respondents' argument that wills and trusts can be held void as against public policy under MRPC 1.8(c). And the affirming opinion's reasoning on this point cites a particularly questionable use of legislative history. It cites the EPIC Reporter's Commentary to support the proposition that MCL 700.3407 merely restated the law of burdens of proof, presumptions and all, so that any change to the Powers presumption risks contravening the statute. See Martin, Estates and Protected Individuals Code with Reporters' Commentary (ICLE, 2001), p. 77. But the Reporter's Commentary-an item the Legislature never acted upon-does "not involve an act of the Legislature" and thus has "considerably diminished" use for courts. In re Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit , 468 Mich. 109, 115 n. 5, 659 N.W.2d 597 (2003). Thus, the notion that EPIC has incorporated, or otherwise precludes us from revisiting, the Powers presumption is not borne out by the statutory text but instead relies in part on the affirming opinion's novel use of legislative history. I am not convinced. See also American Bar Association, Final Report of the Committee on Code of Professional Ethics , < https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/litigation/materials/2015-aba-annual/2015_aba_annual_wm/2p_1_1908_canons_of_ethics.authcheckdam.pdf> (accessed June 13, 2018) [https://perma.cc/TR8D-HFZY], which includes the 1908 Canons. As Justice Harlan Stone lamented, "Our canons of ethics for the most part are generalizations designed for an earlier era." Stone, The Public Influence of the Bar , 48 Harv. L Rev. 1, 10 (1934). In 1935 the Legislature passed 1935 PA 58, giving this Court the authority to create and regulate the State Bar of Michigan. Under that statute, the Court adopted the Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan and the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. See Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan , 15 Mich. State B J 12, 17 (1936) ("Section 14-Rules of Professional Conduct. The ethical standards relating to the practice of law in this state shall be the present Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association, and those which may from time to time be announced or recognized by the Supreme Court of this State."); Canons of Professional Ethics , 15 Mich. State B J 42 (1936). Some scholars have suggested that the Canons were not "a serious effort [to] set[ ] a national standard for lawyer behavior; indeed, in the sense described, they were just the opposite." In the Shadow of the Shrine , 54 Wayne L Rev. at 7. It was not until the Canons were adopted by most states, the ABA grew in membership and influence, and the ABA issued opinions to clarify the Canons that the Canons became authoritative. Id . Canons of Professional Ethics , 17 Mich. State B J 483, 486 (1938). The original version of Canon 11 in both the 1908 ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and the 1935 Michigan Canons of Professional Ethics did not contain the phrase "The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client." See Rule 11 , Canons of Professional Ethics , 15 Mich. State B J 42, 45 (1936). The Canon was amended by the ABA in 1933 and 1937, and this Court adopted the language in full in 1938. See American Bar Association, ABA Canons of Professional Ethics , < https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/mrpc_migrated/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf> (accessed on June 13, 2018) [https://perma.cc/JT2Q-TRMM]. While this Court did adopt some disciplinary mechanisms in 1935 when it adopted the Supreme Court Rules for the State Bar of Michigan, it was not until 1947 that the Court clarified and expanded the grievance procedure for attorney misconduct. See Rule 15, Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan , 317 Mich. xxxix, xlvi (1947). Since 1947 this Court has repeatedly amended the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan to strengthen the attorney grievance procedure. See, e.g., Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan , 343 Mich. lxi, xliii (1955); Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan , 369 Mich. xxxiii, xxxiv (1963). We see the same outcome in another ethics opinion, where the attorney drafted a will naming himself as executor of the estate and leaving himself a sizeable fee-10 percent of the estate. Opinion 144, 1951, 57 Mich. State Bar J 181 (Special Issue, 1978). See Court Considers Modified ABA Canons and Rules for Michigan , 50 Mich. State B J 56, 56-68 (1971); see also Carty, Money for Nothing? Have the New Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct Gone Too Far in Liberalizing the Rules Governing Attorney's Referral Fees? , 68 U Det. L Rev. 229, 234 (1991). The ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility was adopted by the ABA in 1969. This Ethical Consideration stated: A lawyer should not suggest to his client that a gift be made to himself or for his benefit. If a lawyer accepts a gift from his client, he is peculiarly susceptible to the charge that he unduly influenced or overreached the client. If a client voluntarily offers to make a gift to his lawyer, the lawyer may accept the gift, but before doing so, he should urge that his client secure disinterested advice from an independent, competent person who is cognizant of all the circumstances. Other than in exceptional circumstances, a lawyer should insist that an instrument in which his client desires to name him beneficially be prepared by another lawyer selected by the client. [Ethical Consideration 5-5, American Bar Association, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, < https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/professional_responsibility/mod_code_prof_resp.authcheckdam.pdf> (accessed June 13, 2018) [https://perma.cc/8YQY-TQ5R]. See In the Shadow of the Shrine , 54 Wayne L Rev. at 8 (noting the Ethical Considerations' aspirational nature); ABA Comm. on Evaluation of Prof Standards, Report to the House of Delegates (January, 1982), p. 2 ("As explained in the [Model] Code Preamble, it was the intent of the Wright Committee [which drafted the Code] that the Code's Canons and Ethical Considerations be and remain unenforceable."), available at < https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/kutak_2-82.authcheckdam.pdf> (accessed June 13, 2018) [https://perma.cc/SMKX-RLXM]. As Professor Hazard noted, the "Model Rules were set forth in the manner of a true code-mandatory conduct rules, without the 'softening' addition of hortatory provisions that were meant to inspire rather than command." Hazard, Law of Lawyering at § 1.12, p. 1-35. This report is available at < https://americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/kutak_8-82.authcheckdam.pdf> (accessed June 13, 2018) [https://perma.cc/V4XW-7TZ4]. See also id . at 2 ("But filling in gaps in the 1969 Code was only part of the assignment. Experience has shown that the Code, in many cases, is difficult to interpret and apply. There is a need for standards that are more understandable and more readily useful to lawyers in everyday practice. The bar is serious about self-regulation and enforcement of its standards. But it must be recognized that enforcement will not be achieved primarily through disciplinary agencies. Like any other body of law, the law of lawyering depends on self-enforcement and widespread voluntary compliance if its ends are to be met. And the achievement of voluntary compliance depends, in turn, on the existence of clear, workable rules."). Proponents of the change in Michigan, including the State Bar, argued that the Model Rules provided clear guidance in the form of mandatory law familiar to practitioners. See ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct, Current Reports (Feb. 22, 1984), pp. 70-71. The ABA adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. This Court did not adopt the Model Rules in full, instead making several modifications. See MRPC 1.10 ; compare Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.10; see MRPC 3.6 ; compare Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.6. At the time, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(c) mirrored MRPC 1.8(c). See American Bar Association, A Legislative History: The Development of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 1982-2005 (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2006), p. 184. In 2002, the ABA amended Model Rule 1.8(c). Id . at pp. 197-211. Rule 1.8(c) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct now provides in full: A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship. This Court has yet to adopt these amendments. MRPC 1.8 governs "Prohibited Transactions." This Court has been bemoaning such gifts since the fin de siècle . Donovan , 113 Mich. 53, 71 N.W. 523. And thousands of years before that, going as far back as ancient Rome, these sorts of instruments have been forbidden. Testamentary Gifts from Client to the Attorney-Draftsman , 66 Neb. L Rev. at 697. These cases were resolved because the ethical rules were public policy, and that the agreements were void for violating that policy. See, e.g., Evans & Luptak, PLC , 251 Mich. App. at 189, 650 N.W.2d 364 ("We hold that the alleged contract is unethical because it violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). Furthermore, we hold that unethical contracts violate our public policy and therefore are unenforceable."). In the present context, by contrast, there is no need to resort to public policy because our Court has long had the power to establish the law of fraud, as explained above. So I would not lend the rule itself substantive effect, nor must I look to it here as the definitive expression of public policy. These alternative procedures appear to be widely used. Shortly before EPIC was passed, more than 70 percent of estates began in independent administration. Foster & Zack, p. 1-2. The trend away from formal probate continued after EPIC took effect. Id . A per se rule would not, however, overwhelm the ordinary rule that undue influence may be rebutted, for attorneys are unique among fiduciaries in many ways. First, only lawyers are bound by MRPC 1.8(c). Second, lawyers are an indispensable part of the will-drafting process and routinely relied on by courts to be neutral witnesses about a client's intent. E.g. In re Teller's Estate , 288 Mich. 193, 199, 284 N.W. 696 (1939), overruled in part on other grounds by Wood Estate , 374 Mich. 278, 132 N.W.2d 35. And third, because of their legal training and intimate relationship with the client, they are well-poised to exert undue influence. See In re Henderson , 80 N.Y.2d 388, 394, 590 N.Y.S.2d 836, 605 N.E.2d 323 (1992). See too Powers , when the Court lamented how the case had consumed "8-weeks' trial, an infinity of time in legal research and briefing, a prodigal amount of money, and the expenditure of sorely needed judicial time." Powers , 375 Mich. at 176, 134 N.W.2d 148. Cf. Dickens, Bleak House (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1853), p. 3 ("This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. ... Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. ... The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.").

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 3, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's June 1, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Attorney General to participate in oral argument by sharing five minutes of the petitioner-appellee's allotted time for argument is GRANTED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the applications. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing the issues raised in the primary appeal and the cross-appeal, including how, consistent with MCL 600.2912b, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may amend the complaint to include newly discovered claims against an existing defendant. In addition, the appellants shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). Each party may file a response brief within 14 days of being served with the other party's initial supplemental brief. Additionally, at this time, the appellees/cross-appellants shall electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellants. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. The Michigan Association for Justice, the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Viviano, J., not participating due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

Meter, P.J. In this juvenile-delinquency case against respondent, petitioner appeals by leave granted an order excluding other-acts evidence. We hold that the trial court erred by concluding that MCL 768.27a does not apply to juvenile-delinquency trials. We vacate the trial court's order excluding the other-acts evidence and remand this matter to the trial court for a determination of the admissibility of the other-acts evidence under the proper legal framework. Petitioner filed two juvenile-delinquency petitions against respondent. Each petition concerns a separate alleged victim. The first petition alleges that respondent committed third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d(1)(b) (force or coercion used to accomplish sexual penetration), and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e(1)(b) (force or coercion used to accomplish sexual contact). This petition relates to an October 27, 2014, incident in which respondent allegedly touched his minor cousin's vagina through her pants and then, after removing her pants and underwear, penetrated her vagina with his fingers and performed cunnilingus. The second petition alleges that respondent committed CSC-III, MCL 750.520d (multiple variables), by penetrating a 14-year-old girl's vagina with his fingers, mouth, and penis during the period from October 30, 2015, to November 1, 2015. Petitioner filed a notice of intent to introduce, in both cases, other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27a. MCL 768.27a(1) states, in relevant part, that "in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of committing a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." The notice expressed petitioner's intent to use the acts alleged in each petition in the trial on the other petition, i.e., the acts alleged in the first petition in the trial on the second petition, and the acts alleged in the second petition in the trial on the first petition. Respondent objected, arguing, in part, that MCL 768.27a allows for the admission into evidence of other acts in criminal cases, and juvenile-delinquency proceedings are not criminal cases. Respondent contended that petitioner did not indicate what purpose beyond mere propensity would be served by the introduction of the other-acts evidence and stated that evidence may not be offered to demonstrate propensity under MRE 404(b). Petitioner acknowledged that it was seeking to admit the other-acts evidence to show propensity but argued that this was appropriate under MCL 768.27a because the statute supersedes MRE 404(b). The trial court ruled in respondent's favor, stating that if the Legislature had intended to include juvenile proceedings within the purview of MCL 768.27a, it would have explicitly said as much in the statute. The court also cited MRE 403, concluding that the probative value of the evidence would be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Petitioner now appeals the trial court's ruling. We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to exclude evidence. People v. Watkins , 491 Mich. 450, 467, 818 N.W.2d 296 (2012). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes." Id . We review de novo the interpretation of statutes and court rules. People v. Lee , 489 Mich. 289, 295, 803 N.W.2d 165 (2011). We enforce unambiguous language of a statute or court rule as it is written. People v. Comer , 500 Mich. 278, 287, 901 N.W.2d 553 (2017). MCL 768.27a allows the factfinder to consider evidence of other acts committed by a defendant to show the defendant's character and propensity to commit the charged crime. Watkins , 491 Mich. at 470, 486, 818 N.W.2d 296. Again, the statute provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of committing a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." MCL 768.27a(1). In Watkins , the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that MCL 768.27a irreconcilably conflicts with MRE 404(b), which bars the admission of other-acts evidence for the purpose of showing propensity, and that MCL 768.27a prevails over MRE 404(b). Watkins , 491 Mich. at 455, 818 N.W.2d 296. Evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403, and may be excluded under MRE 403 if " 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' " Id . at 481, 818 N.W.2d 296, quoting MRE 403. When applying MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, a trial court must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the probative value of the evidence, rather than in favor of its prejudicial effect. Watkins , 491 Mich. at 487, 818 N.W.2d 296. "[O]ther-acts evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a may not be excluded under MRE 403 as overly prejudicial merely because it allows a jury to draw a propensity inference." Id . However, courts may exclude such evidence under MRE 403 for other reasons, including: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant's and the defendant's testimony. [ Id . at 487-488, 818 N.W.2d 296.] "This list of considerations is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive." Id . at 488, 818 N.W.2d 296. The central question presented in this case is whether MCL 768.27a applies in juvenile-delinquency trials. MCL 768.27a does not expressly refer to juvenile-delinquency trials. Subchapter 3.900 of the Michigan Court Rules governs proceedings involving juveniles. MCR 3.901(A)(3) states that "[t]he Michigan Rules of Evidence, except with regard to privileges, do not apply to proceedings under this subchapter, except where a rule in this subchapter so provides." See also MRE 1101(b)(7) (providing that the Michigan Rules of Evidence do not apply to juvenile proceedings "wherever MCR subchapter 3.900 states that the Michigan Rules of Evidence do not apply"). MCR 3.942 governs juvenile trials. MCR 3.942(C) states: "The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt apply at trial." Therefore, the Michigan Rules of Evidence apply in juvenile-delinquency trials. MRE 101 provides that "[a] statutory rule of evidence not in conflict with these rules or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court is effective until superseded by rule or decision of the Supreme Court." MCL 768.27a is a statutory rule of evidence. Watkins , 491 Mich. at 473, 818 N.W.2d 296. Although MCL 768.27a conflicts with MRE 404(b), the Supreme Court has determined that for cases encompassed by the language of MCL 768.27a, MCL 768.27a supersedes MRE 404(b). Watkins , 491 Mich. at 476-477, 818 N.W.2d 296. Therefore, as a statutory rule of evidence, MCL 768.27a is effective under the Michigan Rules of Evidence because the statutory rule has not been superseded by rule or decision of the Supreme Court but has, on the contrary, been held by the Supreme Court to supersede MRE 404(b). Because the Michigan Rules of Evidence apply in juvenile-delinquency trials, the statute at issue-a statutory rule of evidence that supersedes MRE 404(b) -is applicable in juvenile-delinquency trials. Reinforcing this conclusion is that, although "juvenile proceedings are not considered to be criminal prosecutions," In re McDaniel , 186 Mich. App. 696, 698, 465 N.W.2d 51 (1991), juvenile-delinquency proceedings are nonetheless closely analogous to the criminal process, In re Carey , 241 Mich. App. 222, 227, 615 N.W.2d 742 (2000). "[W]hen addressing a question implicating the juvenile code, this Court routinely looks to the adult criminal code and cases that interpret it so long as they are not in conflict or duplicative of a juvenile code provision." In re Killich , 319 Mich. App. 331, 337, 900 N.W.2d 692 (2017) ; see also In re McDaniel , 186 Mich. App. at 699, 465 N.W.2d 51 (holding that a criminal statutory provision abolishing the distinction between a principal and an accessory applies in juvenile proceedings). In In re Alton , 203 Mich. App. 405, 407, 513 N.W.2d 162 (1994), this Court stated that substantive criminal law applies in juvenile-delinquency proceedings when the critical issue is whether the juvenile violated the law. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that " MCL 768.27a is a valid enactment of substantive law" that "is based on policy considerations over and beyond the orderly dispatch of judicial business." Watkins , 491 Mich. at 475, 818 N.W.2d 296. In particular, MCL 768.27a"reflects a substantive legislative determination that juries should be privy to a defendant's behavioral history in cases charging the defendant with sexual misconduct against a minor." Id . at 476, 818 N.W.2d 296. The Supreme Court explained that MCL 768.27a was enacted "to address a substantive concern about the protection of children and the prosecution of persons who perpetuate certain enumerated crimes against children and are more likely than others to reoffend." Id . MCL 768.27a embodies substantive policy considerations regarding criminal law, id. at 475-476, 818 N.W.2d 296, and there is no provision in the juvenile code or juvenile court rules that conflicts with or parallels MCL 768.27a. The applicable statutory language, court rules, and caselaw demonstrate that the trial court erred by concluding that MCL 768.27a did not apply to the proceedings in question. As noted, the trial court also based its decision to exclude the other-acts evidence on an application of MRE 403. As discussed, the Supreme Court in Watkins ruled that evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403, but in undertaking an analysis under MRE 403, a trial court must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the probative value of the evidence rather than in favor of its prejudicial effect. Watkins , 491 Mich. at 486-487, 818 N.W.2d 296. From a reading of the trial court's ruling, it appears that the trial court improperly weighed the propensity inference in favor of the prejudicial effect of the evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order excluding the other-acts evidence and direct the trial court to make its MRE 403 determination in accordance with the principles set forth in Watkins , 491 Mich. at 486-490, 818 N.W.2d 296. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. BORRELLO and BOONSTRA, JJ., concurred with METER, P.J. The trial court's order cites both petitions, but in its oral ruling the court stated that it was ruling only with respect to the first petition. Our opinion today applies, in any event, to both cases. Respondent did not and does not dispute that the petitions involve "listed offense[s]" under MCL 768.27a(1). The Watkins Court discussed the distinction between "procedural rules of evidence" and "substantive rules of evidence," concluding that MCL 768.27a is a substantive rule of evidence. Watkins , 491 Mich. at 474-475, 818 N.W.2d 296.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals and the defendants' motion to dismiss are considered. The defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the application is DISMISSED, because the plaintiff-appellant is a vexatious litigator under MCR 7.316(C)(3). We direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept any further filings from the plaintiff-appellant in this matter unless the plaintiff-appellant has obtained leave and has submitted the filing fee required by MCR 7.319. The plaintiff's motion to waive fees is DENIED.

Bernstein, J. In this case, we consider how long an interested party has to file a petition for judicial review of a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) decision to issue a permit for an existing source of air pollution. We hold that MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) provide that such a petition must be filed within 90 days of the DEQ's final permit action. Therefore, the circuit court correctly denied AK Steel Corporation's (AK Steel's) motion to dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1) because the petition for judicial review was timely filed 59 days after the final permit action in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, albeit for different reasons, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY AK Steel operates a steel mill within the Ford Rouge Manufacturing complex in Dearborn, Michigan. Before being acquired by AK Steel in 2014, the steel mill was operated by Severstal Dearborn, LLC (Severstal). The steel mill is subject to air pollution control and permitting requirements under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq ., and the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.101 et seq . In order to comply with the Clean Air Act, Part 55 of the NREPA requires the DEQ to promulgate rules to establish a permit-to-install program, MCL 324.5505(2), and an operating-permit program, MCL 324.5506(4). In 2006, the DEQ issued Severstal a permit to install titled "PTI 182-05," which authorized the rebuilding of a blast furnace and the installation of three air pollution control devices at Severstal's steel mill. In the years that followed, the permit was revised twice, first in 2006 (PTI 182-05A) and again in 2007 (PTI 182-05B). Each successive permit modified and replaced the preceding permit. Emissions testing performed in 2008 and 2009 revealed that several emission sources at the steel mill exceeded the level permitted by PTI 182-05B. The DEQ sent Severstal a notice of violation, and after extended negotiations, they entered into an agreement, pursuant to which Severstal submitted an application for PTI 182-05C. The DEQ issued the permit on May 12, 2014, after a period of public comment and a public hearing as prescribed by the NREPA, MCL 324.5511(3). The DEQ stated that the purpose of PTI 182-05C was to correct inaccurate assumptions about pre-existing and projected emissions and to reallocate emissions among certain pollution sources covered by the permit to install. On July 10, 2014, 59 days after PTI 182-05C was issued, appellee South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Association, Inc. (South Dearborn) and a number of other environmental groups appealed the DEQ's decision by filing a petition for judicial review in the Wayne Circuit Court. AK Steel purchased the steel mill a short time later and filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), arguing that South Dearborn's petition was untimely filed and thus the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the case. According to AK Steel, while MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) provide a right to appeal the issuance or denial of an operating permit and a permit to install for a new source, and state when such appeals must be filed, neither statute applies to a permit to install for an existing source. Instead, AK Steel argued that South Dearborn's right to appeal a permit to install for an existing source is based in MCL 600.631 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.101 et seq ., and that the period in which to file an appeal is thus governed by MCR 7.123(B)(1) and MCR 7.104(A). AK Steel claimed that South Dearborn's appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 21 days, as required by those court rules. The circuit court disagreed. The court noted that MCL 324.5506(14) states, "A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action." Relying heavily on the Legislature's use of an indefinite article, the circuit court found that the phrase "a permit" in MCL 324.5506(14) included the permit to install appealed in this case. Therefore, South Dearborn had 90 days from the date that the fourth successive permit was issued to file a petition for judicial review. Accordingly, the circuit court held that South Dearborn's petition was timely filed and denied AK Steel's motion to dismiss. AK Steel appealed in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the result, but on different grounds. In the Court of Appeals' view, "[t]he circuit court erred by ignoring the plain context of [ MCL 324.5506(14) ] and placing far too much importance on the Legislature's use of the indefinite article 'a.' " South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't Of Environmental Quality , 316 Mich. App. 265, 273, 891 N.W.2d 233 (2016) ( SDEIA ). Rejecting the circuit court's reasoning, the Court of Appeals held that the appeals period outlined in MCL 324.5506(14) applies only to operating permits. Id . at 274, 891 N.W.2d 233. The Court of Appeals determined that MCL 600.631 and MCR 7.119 governed this appeal because, in its view, the contested-case provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et seq ., applied to the permitting decision pursuant to MCL 24.291(1). Id . at 277, 891 N.W.2d 233. On this basis, the Court of Appeals held that the petition was timely because it was filed within the 60-day period provided by MCR 7.119 and MCR 7.104(A). Id . at 277-278, 891 N.W.2d 233. AK Steel sought leave to appeal in this Court. The DEQ, participating for the first time in these legal proceedings, filed a separate application raising nearly identical arguments. This Court consolidated their applications for the purpose of appellate review and scheduled oral argument on the applications. South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Environmental Quality , 500 Mich. 966, 892 N.W.2d 374 (2017). Our order instructed the parties to address, in substantive part: (1) whether MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) prescribe the applicable time period for filing a petition for judicial review of the Department of Environmental Quality's issuance of the permit that the petitioners are seeking to challenge, and (2) if not, whether the issuance of that permit was a decision of that agency subject to the contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, such that the time period for filing a petition for judicial review set forth in MCR 7.119(B)(1) applies, rather than the time period established by MCR 7.123(B)(1) and MCR 7.104(A). [ Id . ] II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews de novo the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. Whether the circuit court has jurisdiction over this appeal is a question of statutory interpretation that we also review de novo. People v. Mazur , 497 Mich. 302, 308, 872 N.W.2d 201 (2015). The principal goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, and the most reliable evidence of that intent is the plain language of the statute. Id . When interpreting a statute, " 'we must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.' " People v. Rea , 500 Mich. 422, 428, 902 N.W.2d 362 (2017), quoting People v. Miller , 498 Mich. 13, 25, 869 N.W.2d 204 (2015). Moreover, "[n]ontechnical words and phrases" should be construed according to their plain meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used. Rea , 500 Mich. at 428, 902 N.W.2d 362. "When a word or phrase is not defined by the statute in question, it is appropriate to consult dictionary definitions to determine [its] plain and ordinary meaning ...." Id . III. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF MCL 324.5505(8) AND MCL 324.5506(14) The focus of this appeal is on the interplay of MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14). These subsections govern appeals of various DEQ permitting decisions made pursuant to Part 55 of the NREPA. The critical dispute in this case is whether the fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) -"A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action"-applies to the issuance of a permit to install for an existing source. The Court of Appeals held that this sentence applies only to operating permits. SDEIA , 316 Mich. App. at 272-273, 891 N.W.2d 233. We disagree and conclude that the Court of Appeals failed to read MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) together so as to "harmonize the[ir] meaning, giving effect to the act as a whole." G. C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. , 468 Mich. 416, 421, 662 N.W.2d 710 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A. MCL 324.5505(8) We begin our analysis with MCL 324.5505(8), which states: Any person may appeal the issuance or denial by the [DEQ] of a permit to install, a general permit, or a permit to operate authorized in rules promulgated under [ MCL 324.5505(6) ], for a new source in accordance with ... MCL 600.631.... Petitions for review shall be the exclusive means to obtain judicial review of such a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action, except that a petition may be filed after that deadline only if the petition is based solely on grounds arising after the deadline for judicial review. Such a petition shall be filed no later than 90 days after the new grounds for review arise. Appeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14) . [Emphasis added.] The first two sentences of MCL 324.5505(8) provide that "any person" may seek judicial review in accordance with MCL 600.631 to challenge the issuance or denial of certain permits relating to new sources "within 90 days after the final permit action ...." However, the permit at issue in this case was issued for an existing source, which is addressed in the last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) -"Appeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14)." (Emphasis added.) The plain language of this sentence indicates that we turn to MCL 324.5506(14) for the rules governing appeals of permit actions for an existing source, including appeals in the circuit court in accordance with MCL 600.631. AK Steel and the DEQ argue that the last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) does not provide a right to judicial review of permit actions for an existing source pursuant to MCL 600.631 ; rather, it merely notifies the reader of the contents of MCL 324.5506(14). We reject that interpretation. Reading the last sentence as a mere descriptor of the contents of MCL 324.5506(14) would strip it of any independent meaning or legal purpose. Such a reading is contrary to the interpretive principle that a statute should be construed so as to avoid rendering its language surplusage. Rea , 500 Mich. at 428, 902 N.W.2d 362. Rather, by saying that appeals of permit actions for existing sources are "subject to" MCL 324.5506(14), the last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) instructs the reader that a right to appeal certain permit actions for an existing source, including a right to appeal in the circuit court in accordance with MCL 600.631, exists and is subject to MCL 324.5506(14). Stated differently, such appeals are governed by MCL 324.5506(14). This reading is consistent with our interpretation of similar statutory language in Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm. , 470 Mich. 154, 680 N.W.2d 840 (2004). That case involved a utility company that wanted to build a pipeline. Two statutory provisions, MCL 247.183(1) and MCL 247.183(2), outlined the approval process for a pipeline. The utility company argued that because the plain language of MCL 247.183(1) stated that it was "subject to" MCL 247.183(2), the company had to comply only with MCL 247.183(2) and not MCL 247.183(1) as well. We rejected that argument. Id . at 159-160, 680 N.W.2d 840. In doing so, we examined the phrase "subject to" and noted that it is defined as "dependent upon." Id . at 160, 680 N.W.2d 840, citing Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). From there, we reasoned: When used as it is here and in other places in the Legislature's work, it is clear that the subsections work together .... That is, both subsections are applicable because the relevant words in subsection 1, the "subject to" words, do not mean that the requirements of subsection 1 do not apply to those utilities that are covered also by subsection 2. [ Mayor of Lansing , 470 Mich. at 160, 680 N.W.2d 840.] We further note that Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) provides that to be "subject" to something includes, among other things, being "contingent on or under the influence of some later action < the plan is [subject] to discussion>." This signals that when an item or event is subject to another item or event, the former and the latter must be considered together. Therefore, by using the phrase "subject to" in MCL 324.5505(8), the Legislature indicated its intent that MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) be read together, not in isolation. This reading also makes sense in light of the same language used elsewhere in Part 55 of the NREPA to indicate that the application of one provision is affected by another. Reading MCL 324.5505(8) as working with MCL 324.5506(14) gives the full text of both statutes independent meaning and avoids reducing the final sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) to a mere descriptor of the next section. AK Steel also urges us to disregard the final sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) because it does not explicitly refer to a permit to install . However, when we consider the effect of the words "permit actions" in that sentence, it is clear that identifying a specific permit type in the statutory language was unnecessary. The first sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) states, "Any person may appeal the issuance or denial ... of a permit to install , a general permit, or a permit to operate ... for a new source in accordance with ... MCL 600.631." (Emphasis added.) An issuance and a denial are two types of actions that the DEQ can take in response to a permit application. The last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) then states, "Appeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14)." (Emphasis added.) Read in context, "permit actions" refers, at minimum, back to the two types of departmental actions mentioned in the first sentence: an issuance or a denial. It is also clear that a permit action requires a permit to act upon. In addition to a permit to install, two other types of permits are listed in the first sentence of the statute, both of which could be issued for an existing source. The general reference to "permit actions" in the final sentence of MCL 324.5505(8), rather than a reference to a specific type of permit, indicates that appeals of all three permit types are contemplated. Thus, appeals of permit actions that are subject to MCL 324.5506(14) include, at a minimum, appeals of the issuance or denial of a permit to install, a general permit, or a permit to operate for an existing source. In summary, the first part of MCL 324.5505(8) recognizes the right to judicial review of the issuance or denial of a permit to install for a new source in accordance with MCL 600.631 and provides "90 days after the final permit action" to file such an appeal. The final sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) recognizes the right to judicial review of the issuance or denial of a permit to install for an existing source in accordance with MCL 600.631 and provides that an appeal of such a permit action is governed by MCL 324.5506(14). Since this case deals with an existing source, the next step in our analysis is to examine the language of MCL 324.5506(14) to determine the time period for filing appeals related to existing sources. B. MCL 324.5506(14) MCL 324.5506(14) provides: A person who owns or operates an existing source that is required to obtain an operating permit under this section, a general permit, or a permit to operate authorized under rules promulgated under section 5505(6) may file a petition with the [DEQ] for review of the denial of his or her application for such a permit, the revision of any emissions limitation, standard, or condition, or a proposed revocation of his or her permit. This review shall be conducted pursuant to the contested case and judicial review procedures of the administrative procedures act ..., being [ MCL 24.201 to MCL 24.328 ]. Any person may appeal the issuance or denial of an operating permit in accordance with [ MCL 600.631 ]. A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action. Such a petition may be filed after that deadline only if it is based solely on grounds arising after the deadline for judicial review and if the appeal does not involve applicable standards and requirements of the acid rain program under title IV. Such a petition shall be filed within 90 days after the new grounds for review arise. [Emphasis added.] The Court of Appeals held that the 90-day period in which to file a petition for judicial review of "a permit" in MCL 324.5506(14) applies only to appeals of operating permits. SDEIA , 316 Mich. App. at 274, 891 N.W.2d 233. We disagree and hold that MCL 324.5506(14) also provides 90 days to seek judicial review of a decision to issue or deny a permit to install for an existing source. The fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) has been the focus of the disagreement in this case. It states that "[a] petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action." MCL 324.5506(14) (emphasis added). Appellants and the dissent argue that "a permit" should be read as referring to only the operating permits described in the previous sentence-"[a]ny person may appeal the issuance or denial of an operating permit in accordance with [ MCL 600.631 ]." If we read MCL 324.5506(14) alone and without consideration of MCL 324.5505(8), we might be inclined to agree. However, we do not read statutory language in isolation and must construe its meaning in light of the context of its use. See Rea , 500 Mich. at 430, 902 N.W.2d 362 ; Guardian Alarm Co. , 468 Mich. at 421, 662 N.W.2d 710. As explained earlier, the cross-reference in MCL 324.5505(8) to MCL 324.5506(14) demonstrates that appeals of the issuance or denial of a permit are subject to MCL 324.5506(14) when the permit is for an existing source. With this in mind, we conclude that a petition for judicial review of the issuance or denial of any of the types of permits for an existing source that are governed by MCL 324.5505 and MCL 324.5506 must be filed within 90 days of the DEQ's final permit action. Several considerations lead us to this conclusion. The first is the presence of an indefinite article preceding the word "permit" in MCL 324.5506(14), which the Court of Appeals did not give due consideration. Rather than stating that a petition for review of the permit must be filed within 90 days, the statute states that a petition for review of "a permit" must be filed within 90 days. MCL 324.5506(14) (emphasis added). This suggests that the statute refers to more than one type of permit. "A" is an indefinite article, which is often used to mean "any." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). Whether "a" should be read as referring to a discrete item or as referring to one of many potential items depends on the context in which it is used. But, while the article may be susceptible to multiple meanings when read in isolation, we must select the meaning that makes the most sense when the statute is read as a whole. See Rea , 500 Mich. at 431, 902 N.W.2d 362 ; Miller , 498 Mich. at 24, 869 N.W.2d 204. It is also a fundamental principle of statutory construction that "[w]hen the Legislature uses different words, the words are generally intended to connote different meanings." U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mich. Catastrophic Claims Ass'n (On Rehearing) , 484 Mich. 1, 14, 795 N.W.2d 101 (2009). Applying that principle here, had the Legislature intended the fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) to refer only to operating permits, then it would have used that specific term, or another restrictive term, rather than the general phrase "a permit." Four permit types are mentioned by name in MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14), which indicates that the Legislature knew how to be specific when it so intended. It is notable that the Legislature refers to the generic "a permit" in the sentence stating the time line for filing for judicial review but specifically refers to operating permits in the immediately preceding sentence; had the Legislature intended the 90-day time line to apply only to operating permits, it could have easily done so, but it did not. Because the statute refers instead to "a permit," this language thus refers to any of the four types of permits mentioned in MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14). This reading is bolstered by other provisions in Part 55 of the NREPA, in which the Legislature used the phrase "a permit" to refer to all permits governed by Part 55 and named specific permits when a provision's applicability is limited to a single type of permit. We also find significant the Legislature's use of restrictive language in other parts of the very statutes being analyzed. As South Dearborn notes, when the Legislature wanted to use "permit" to refer to a particular previously referenced permit, it used more restrictive language. In MCL 324.5506(14), the first sentence lists three types of permits that an owner or operator of an emission source might possess and instructs how "such a permit " and "his or her permit " may be reviewed when referring back to those specific permits. (Emphasis added.) This signals a limitation to the previously mentioned permits. The final three sentences of MCL 324.5506(14) also distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive language. They state: A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action. Such a petition may be filed after that deadline only if it is based solely on grounds arising after the deadline for judicial review and if [it does not involve Title IV's acid rain program]. Such a petition shall be filed within 90 days after the new grounds for review arise. [ MCL 324.5506(14) (emphasis added).] The final two sentences in the quoted passage refer back to the subject of the preceding sentence by starting with the words "such a petition." By doing so, these sentences impose additional limitations on the petition for judicial review described in the first sentence. The use of "such a petition" also makes clear that these limitations apply only to a petition for judicial review, as opposed to a petition for administrative review mentioned earlier in the statute. Similarly, although MCL 324.5505(8) uses the phrase "such a permit," MCL 324.5506(14) does not use that same phrase to limit the types of permit to which the 90-day time line applies. On the basis of this analysis, we conclude that the Legislature intended "a permit" in MCL 324.5506(14) to mean "any permit" in order to describe the requirements for judicial review of the issuance or denial of the four types of permits for existing sources that are governed by MCL 324.5505 and MCL 324.5506, one of which is a permit to install. Accordingly, a petition for judicial review of a permit to install for an existing source must be filed within 90 days of the permit being issued. Such a reading harmonizes the meaning of these two statutes. The dissent argues that MCL 324.5506(14) is silent as to petitions for judicial review of permits to install for existing sources and that this silence indicates that the 90-day period contained in MCL 324.5506(14) does not apply to such petitions. However, as already discussed, MCL 324.5505(8) clearly states that "[a]ppeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14)." (Emphasis added.) This effectively refers judicial review of permit actions for existing sources to MCL 324.5506(14) ; it would be unnecessary to state again in MCL 324.5506(14) that a right to judicial review exists with regard to permits to install for existing sources. Accordingly, the silence in MCL 324.5506(14) as to the availability of judicial review for permits to install for existing sources is immaterial because this right is recognized in MCL 324.5505(8), which explicitly states that such appeals are "subject to" MCL 324.5506(14). The Court of Appeals and the dissent suggest that the interpretation we adopt today would render "other avenues for appeal" superfluous because the fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14)"would apply to the appeal of any and all permits." SDEIA , 316 Mich. App. at 273, 891 N.W.2d 233. However, this concern is unfounded. First, no internal conflict is created within MCL 324.5506(14). The first sentence addresses a discrete group of persons who might challenge a permit action-"[a] person who owns or operates an existing source"-and also provides them a right to contest various types of permit actions-not merely the issuance or denial of a permit. MCL 324.5506(14). The second sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) states that owners or operators may file a petition for administrative review of the previously listed permit actions pursuant to the contested-case and judicial-review procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. The first two sentences of MCL 324.5506(14) thus exclusively concern the rights of owners and operators of an existing source to seek administrative review of specific permit actions. Administrative review is a legally distinct avenue of potential relief from judicial review. Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , 462 Mich. 691, 698, 614 N.W.2d 607 (2000) (describing the distinctions between judicial and administrative review). The third sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) states that "[a]ny person may appeal the issuance or denial of an operating permit in accordance with" MCL 600.631. This clearly means that non-owners and non-operators also have a right to judicial review of the issuance or denial of operating permits, even if they possess no right to administrative review. Thus, the first three sentences of MCL 324.5506(14) each have an independent legal purpose that is unaffected by our construction of the fourth sentence. Second, there is no conflict with the right to appeal the issuance or denial of a permit to install for a new source pursuant to MCL 324.5505(8). As we have explained, the first two sentences of MCL 324.5505(8) govern only the appeal of permit actions for specific permits-and only when the permit is for a new source. The fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14) applies to judicial review of permits for an existing source, including issuance or denial of an operating permit, which is not addressed in MCL 324.5505(8). Third, the Court of Appeals also misconstrued the surplusage canon. That canon applies only when a "competing interpretation gives effect to every clause and word of a statute." Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Ltd. Partnership , 564 U.S. 91, 106, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There is no such competing interpretation offered here. In this case, it is the Court of Appeals' interpretation of MCL 324.5506(14) that would render the last sentence in MCL 324.5505(8) needless surplusage. As we explained, its interpretation would relegate the last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8) to a mere descriptor without any independent legal meaning. Therefore, the surplusage canon compels us to reject that interpretation. See Rea , 500 Mich. at 433, 902 N.W.2d 362. For the aforementioned reasons, MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) provide 90 days after the final permit action to file a petition for judicial review. South Dearborn's petition for judicial review was timely filed within the 90-day period. IV. CONCLUSION We hold that, pursuant to MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14), South Dearborn had 90 days from the date the DEQ issued PTI 182-05C to file a petition for judicial review of that decision in the circuit court. Because South Dearborn's petition for judicial review was timely filed 59 days after the permit was issued, the circuit court properly denied AK Steel's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part for different reasons, vacate Part III(B) of the Court of Appeals' opinion, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Elizabeth T. Clement WILDER , J. (dissenting ). I respectfully dissent because I would affirm the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion that holds that MCL 324.5506(14) describes only two different appeals and that the term "a permit" does not refer to a third class of appellant who may appeal any type of permit. Additionally, I would reverse the Court of Appeals insofar as it held that MCR 7.119 governs and hold that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq ., does not apply under these facts. I. ANALYSIS At issue in this case is whether petitioners timely filed their claim in circuit court seeking judicial review of a permitting decision by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding a permit to install for an existing source of air pollution. In short, this Court held oral argument on the questions (1) whether MCL 324.5506(14) gave petitioners a 90-day period to bring their claim and (2) if not, whether MCR 7.119 gave petitioners a 60-day period to bring their claim. South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Environmental Quality , 500 Mich. 966, 892 N.W.2d 374 (2017). If neither provision applies, petitioners' claim is time-barred because it was not brought within the 21 days provided by the catch-all provision of MCL 600.631. A. INTERPRETATION OF PART 55 The dispositive issue is whether the MDEQ's issuance of an existing permit to install is governed by Part 55 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.101 et seq . MCL 324.5506(14) must be interpreted harmoniously with MCL 324.5505(8), and both these provisions must be interpreted while keeping in mind their place in the overall licensing scheme, which comprises state and federal laws and regulations. "A court does not construe the meaning of statutory terms in a vacuum. Rather, we interpret the words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Manuel v. Gill , 481 Mich. 637, 650, 753 N.W.2d 48 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). When interpreting words and phrases used in a statute, those " 'words and phrases used ... must be assigned such meanings as are in harmony with the whole of the statute, construed in the light of history and common sense.' " Sweatt v. Dep't of Corrections , 468 Mich. 172, 179, 661 N.W.2d 201 (2003) (opinion by MARKMAN , J.), quoting Arrowhead Dev. Co. v. Livingston Co. Rd. Comm. , 413 Mich. 505, 516, 322 N.W.2d 702 (1982). Statutory language should be construed reasonably, keeping in mind the purpose of the act. McCahan v. Brennan , 492 Mich. 730, 739, 822 N.W.2d 747 (2012). Air pollution regulation is governed by interrelated federal and state legislative schemes that are implemented by executive agencies. Federal air pollution regulation is rooted in the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC 7401 et seq ., the central goal of which is to ensure clean air by establishing national air quality standards and requiring states to develop state plans to ensure that those standards are met. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the CAA by setting air quality standards and approving state plans. Id . However, the CAA establishes only the minimum air quality levels, and states are free to adopt more stringent environmental standards. 42 USC 7416 ; Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. Detroit , 874 F.2d 332, 336 (C.A. 6, 1989). Michigan's air pollution control program is rooted in Part 55 of the NREPA, and is implemented by the MDEQ, the permitting authority responsible for developing and implementing air quality requirements and enforcing compliance with both state and federal air quality requirements. There are two types of air permits in Michigan: a permit to install (PTI) provided under Michigan law pursuant to § 5505 of Part 55 and a renewable operating permit (ROP) required under federal law by Title V of the CAA, which was incorporated into §§ 5506 and 5507 of Part 55. PTIs are required for any new process or process equipment for a new source of pollution and for modifications to any existing source that might result in a change of emissions. MCL 324.5505. Not all sources of air contaminants require a PTI, and certain insignificant sources are exempt from the PTI requirement altogether. Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1201. A PTI is a requirement solely based in Michigan law; there is no federal requirement that a source obtain a PTI. The ROP program, on the other hand, is part of a national permitting system administered by the state, which requires permitting for "major" sources of air pollution as described in Title V of the CAA. MCL 324.5506 ; 42 USC 7661. PTI terms and conditions may be incorporated into an ROP, but if a source does not need an ROP, then a PTI is the primary permit. Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1201(6)(b) and R 336.1214. Additionally, PTIs may incorporate legally enforceable provisions restricting potential emissions, which allows a source to avoid classification as "major"; as a result, a company can "opt out" of the ROP requirement. Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1205. Because many facilities have hundreds or thousands of processes or devices, and many of those may be subject to multiple regulatory programs including the PTI and ROP programs, it is not uncommon for an owner to apply for and receive multiple PTIs and/or ROPs for a single facility. Additionally, these air pollution permitting schemes treat new sources of air pollution differently from existing sources. For example, the CAA requires new stationary sources "to be built with [the] best technology, and allows less stringent standards for existing sources." The rationale is founded in simple economics: "[t]he cost of retrofitting existing ... factories to emit less pollution is generally higher than the marginal cost of building new sources with cleaner characteristics." Additionally, there are sound public policy reasons for this disparate treatment, namely, "fairness to owners of existing sources in the face of changing social norms, scientific understanding of pollution, and government standards." Having examined the statutory licensing scheme, two conclusions seem apparent: (1) not all permits are created equally, and (2) not all sources of air pollution are treated equally. Nothing in the statutory licensing scheme indicates that all permits and all sources of air pollution should share parity when it comes to judicial review of permitting decisions. Rather, judicial review for Title V ROP permitting decisions is mandated under federal law, which allows any person who participated in the public comment period to sue the local permitting agency (here, the MDEQ) in state court no later than 90 days after the final action on the permit. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3) (2017). By contrast, federal law does not require the issuance of a PTI and consequently does not mandate judicial review of the issuance of such a permit. Rather than shortening the period for any person to bring the challenge to ROP permitting decisions mandated under federal law, the Legislature chose to maintain the full 90-day ceiling imposed by Title V. MCL 324.5506(14) (stating, in pertinent part, that "[a] petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action"). There is no dispute that this 90-day provision includes ROPs. The question is whether it only includes ROPs, for which judicial review is mandated by federal law, or whether it also applies to PTIs, which are solely a creation of Michigan law. The majority concludes that "a permit" is expansive enough to include PTIs. However, in light of the statutory scheme, the textual clues point in the opposite direction. It is undisputed that § 5505(8) applies only to new sources and that according to the final sentence of § 5505(8), existing sources are governed by § 5506(14). Subsection (14) recognizes two categories of challenges to permitting decisions. The first category is the "owner or operator" challenges that take place according to the contested case and judicial review procedures of the APA, which are limited to "an operating permit under this section [an ROP], a general permit, or a permit to operate [a nonrenewable operating permit]." MCL 324.5506(14). Accordingly, owners and operators cannot challenge a PTI decision under this provision. The second category of challenges are those brought by "[a]ny person" to challenge the issuance of an operating permit (an ROP); in accordance with Title V, a petition must be filed no more than 90 days after the final action on the permit. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of § 5506(14) describe the timing and conditions for bringing a petition described in the third sentence. Nothing in § 5506(14) refers to the authority of "any person" to challenge an existing-source PTI decision under MCL 600.631. Rather, the fourth sentence of § 5506(14) states that "[a] petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action." (Emphasis added.) The term "a permit" either means "any permit listed under § 5505(8)" as the majority holds, or it refers to the "operating permit" mentioned in the immediately preceding sentence. Reading § 5506(14) as a whole, sentence four's placement immediately after the sentence recognizing judicial review of an operating permit is a highly relevant context for interpreting the statute. "Statutory interpretation requires courts to consider the placement of the critical language in the statutory scheme." Johnson v. Recca , 492 Mich. 169, 177, 821 N.W.2d 520 (2012). I believe the more reasonable interpretation of sentence four under § 5506(14) is that "a permit" refers to the term "operating permit" used in the immediately preceding sentence , rather than to a PTI, a type of permit that is not mentioned anywhere in § 5506. The majority emphasizes the Legislature's use of an indefinite article as textual support for its interpretation. It is true that "a" may sometimes substitute for the term "any." See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Freeman , 432 Mich. 656, 699, 443 N.W.2d 734 (1989) (opinion by RILEY , C.J.) (finding that "an insured" unambiguously means "any insured"). However, this Court has also recognized that the use of an indefinite article does not always require a binary reading in which "a" refers to "any and all" and "the" refers to "one and only one specific antecedent noun." Rather than being purely a measure of particularity, indefinite nouns may indicate singularity and plurality. Robinson v. Lansing , 486 Mich. 1, 26-27, 782 N.W.2d 171 (2010) ( YOUNG , J., concurring) (noting that a definite article may refer to an earlier noun modified by an indefinite article). See also Michigan v. McQueen , 493 Mich. 135, 154-156, 828 N.W.2d 644 (2013) (concluding that the definite article "the" in "the qualifying patient" used later in the statute at issue must refer back to the antecedent indefinite article "a" in "a qualifying patient" used in the introductory part of that statute). This case presents an instance in which "a permit" does not refer to "any and all permits." Instead, it recognizes that there may be plural permits of the singular species identified in the preceding sentence (operating permit). The majority reasons that the meaning of "a permit" must lie in § 5505(8) because the cross-reference to § 5506(14) would otherwise be rendered meaningless-or at least would have little meaning-contrary to the canon against surplusage. However, appeals for existing sources are still subject to § 5506(14), and the cross-reference forecloses any argument that an appeal related to a PTI for an existing source might be made under § 5505(8) because the modifier of "new source" would only apply to the immediately preceding noun "permit to operate" (nonrenewable permit). Moreover, as the majority also notes, that canon applies only when a "competing interpretation gives effect to every clause and word of a statute," Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Ltd. Partnership , 564 U.S. 91, 106, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011), and the maxims of interpretation are merely guides to discovering the Legislature's bona fide intent, not hard and fast rules. (Citation and quotation marks omitted; emphasis added.) The majority's interpretation renders nugatory both §§ 5505(8) and 5506(14). The Legislature differentiated between new and existing sources and the identity of the challenger. Permitting any party to seek judicial review of any permit under sentence four of § 5506(14) renders these distinctions meaningless. Thus, it seems more reasonable to read the cross-reference as clarification that § 5505(8) is focused upon new sources, while § 5506(14) is focused upon existing sources. The Legislature's use of the phrase "subject to" in the final sentence of § 5505(8)-"[a]ppeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14)"-does not alter my conclusion. (Emphasis added.) Two statutory sections that refer to the same issue and are connected by the phrase "subject to" often work together such that both sections govern that particular issue. See Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm. , 470 Mich. 154, 158-161, 680 N.W.2d 840 (2004). In this case, however, the "subject to" language applies only to "[a]ppeals of permit actions for existing sources ," while the first sentence of § 5505(8) only recognizes judicial review of a permit to install for new sources . (Emphasis added.) In other words, because nothing in § 5505(8) before the final sentence refers to existing sources, the "subject to" language does not apply beyond that final sentence and nothing in that sentence indicates which types of permits for existing sources are "subject to" § 5506(14). The majority further reasons that the Legislature's failure to use the term "such a permit" in § 5506(14) as it did in § 5505(8) must be given meaning, because surely the Legislature knows how to properly use a definite article. Yet, this reasoning runs both ways. The Legislature surely knows how to include the term "permit to install" when it wants to refer to one's right to challenge a decision on a PTI under MCL 600.631 -precisely as indicated in § 5505(8) where the Legislature recognized this right regarding new sources. Additionally, the fourth sentence of § 5506(14) does not describe what judicial review process is applicable. Presumably, this would be the judicial review process described in the previous sentence ( MCL 600.631 ), but the majority's interpretation would sever the fourth sentence from the third-an approach that violates the interpretive canon that a statutory text must be construed as a whole. Sweatt , 468 Mich. at 179, 661 N.W.2d 201 (opinion by MARKMAN , J.); see also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012), p. 167 ("Perhaps no interpretative fault is more common than the failure to follow the whole-text canon, which calls on the judicial interpreter to consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts."). Rather than read the sentences of § 5506(14) in isolation from each other and from the rest of the statutory scheme, I conclude that the more reasonable interpretation is that "a permit" refers to "an operating permit." Moreover, there is no reason to assume that the Legislature inadvertently left out judicial review for existing permits to install under the NREPA. "Generally, when language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion." People v. Peltola , 489 Mich. 174, 185, 803 N.W.2d 140 (2011). This Court has recognized that "courts cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute, and then, on the basis of that assumption, apply what is not there." Id . (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). Notably, that is precisely what the majority does: it takes language from § 5505(8), a provision that recognized a right for any person to challenge a PTI for a new source under MCL 600.631, and reads it into § 5506(14), thereby judicially creating what the Legislature plainly omitted-a 90-day window for any person to challenge a PTI for an existing source. This results in a forced parity on all permits for all sources of air pollution-a parity that is not supported by the statutory licensing scheme, which unquestionably treats different permits and different sources of air pollution differently . Because I conclude that the textual clues of the statute point in another direction, I would affirm the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion that holds that MCL 324.5506(14) describes only two different appeals and that the term "a permit" does not refer to a third class of appellant who may appeal any type of permit. B. INTERPRETATION OF MCL 24.201 The majority concludes that the instant petition was timely filed, and accordingly, it does not reach the issue of whether the Court of Appeals properly considered the applicability of the contested-case provision of the APA. However, because I conclude that MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) do not extend to give petitioners 90 days to bring their petition, my analysis continues. I would reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that MCR 7.119 governs, because the APA does not apply under these facts. MCR 7.119 applies to appeals governed by the APA. MCR 7.119(B)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that "[j]udicial review of a final decision or order shall be by filing a claim of appeal in the circuit court within 60 days after the date of mailing of the notice of the agency's final decision or order." The facts demonstrate that petitioners' challenge came 59 days after the MDEQ decision. Thus, if the APA applies, then petitioners' challenge was timely under MCR 7.119. In holding that the APA applies, the panel relied on a relevant provision of Chapter 5, MCL 24.291(1), which states, in pertinent part, that "[w]hen licensing is required to be preceded by notice and an opportunity for hearing , the provisions of this act governing a contested case apply." (Emphasis added.) Section 91(1) does not express what type of "hearing" is required. However, Chapter 1 of the APA defines "contested case," in pertinent part, as a proceeding, including ... licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. [ MCL 24.203(3) (emphasis added).] The panel erroneously concluded without explanation that an "opportunity for hearing" includes a public hearing. As previously stated, each word and phrase in a statute "must be assigned such meanings as are in harmony with the whole of the statute ...." Sweatt , 468 Mich. at 179, 661 N.W.2d 201 (opinion by MARKMAN , J.). Thus, the APA's Chapter 5 requirement for a "hearing" must be read in harmony with its Chapter 1 requirement that the hearing be "evidentiary." Therefore, the correct interpretation of these provisions requires an eviden tiary hearing prior to a contested case in order for the APA to apply. Because that did not happen in this case, the APA does not apply. Petitioners argue that the informal proceedings that occurred in this case were sufficient for the APA to apply. Indeed, MCL 24.292 describes instances in which informal proceedings may be used when an agency seeks to suspend, revoke, or amend a license: Before beginning proceedings for the suspension, revocation, annulment, withdrawal, recall, cancellation or amendment of a license, an agency shall give notice, personally or by mail, to the licensee of facts or conduct that warrants the intended action. The licensee shall be given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for retention of the license .... [ MCL 24.292(1).] However, MCL 24.292 anticipates that a contested case could be brought in the eventuality that informal proceedings do not yield a desired outcome. Therefore, the final agency decision as described in MCR 7.119 would not occur absent the contested case being brought, and although MCR 7.119 is applicable to contested cases, it does not apply to the informal proceedings at issue here. Because I conclude that MCR 7.119 does not apply here, I would reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that holds otherwise. C. APPLICATION OF MCL 600.631 Because the APA is not applicable, this Court must look to the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.101 et seq ., for judicial review. MCL 600.631 provides, in pertinent part: An appeal shall lie from any order, decision, or opinion of any state ... agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules from which an appeal or other judicial review has not otherwise been provided for by law, to the circuit court of the county of which the appellant is a resident or to the circuit court of Ingham county, which court shall have and exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto as in nonjury cases. Such appeals shall be made in accordance with the rules of the supreme court . [Emphasis added.] The RJA provides for judicial review when a statute authorizing the agency to act fails to provide for judicial review and the agency decision does not fall within the APA's definition of a "contested case." Because I conclude that the NREPA does not provide judicial review for petitioners' challenge to the PTI, and because I conclude that the APA does not apply in this case, I also conclude that no appellate review has "otherwise been provided for by law." MCR 7.123 is the catch-all rule for appeals of agency decisions not governed by another rule. The time requirement under MCR 7.123(B)(1) refers to MCR 7.104(A), which provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]n appeal of right to the circuit court must be taken within ... 21 days ...." Petitioners' challenge came 59 days after the MDEQ decision. Thus, petitioners' challenge to the MDEQ issuance of the PTI was not timely. II. CONCLUSION I would affirm the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion that holds that MCL 324.5506(14) describes only two different appeals and that the term "a permit" does not refer to a third class of appellant who may appeal any type of permit. I would reverse the holding that MCR 7.119 governs, because the APA does not apply under these facts. Instead, I would conclude that MCR 7.123 provided 21 days for petitioners to challenge the MDEQ's decision to issue the PTI and that because petitioners' challenge came 59 days after that decision, the challenge was not timely. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Our conclusion that MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) provide 90 days to file a petition in this case makes it unnecessary to consider the applicability of the contested-case provision of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et seq ., an issue considered by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we vacate Part III(B) of the Court of Appeals' analysis of that issue as moot. The Clean Air Act requires states to regulate air pollution emissions within their borders and abide by certain regulatory requirements in doing so. 42 USC 7407. Relevant to this appeal, states must create programs requiring that certain producers of air pollution obtain permits authorizing their conduct. 42 USC 7661a. The NREPA states that "a person shall not install, construct, reconstruct, relocate, alter, or modify any process or process equipment without first obtaining from the [DEQ] a permit to install ... authorizing the conduct or activity." MCL 324.5505(1). The DEQ defines a "permit to install" as "a permit issued by the department authorizing the construction, installation, relocation, or alteration of any process, fuel-burning, refuse-burning, or control equipment in accordance with approved plans and specifications." Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1116(f). South Dearborn is the only named appellee that has participated in the appeal in this Court, and therefore, this opinion only addresses appellees' arguments as presented by South Dearborn. We note that South Dearborn substantively challenged the issuance of the permit to install on the grounds that the DEQ does not have statutory authority to reallocate emission limitations and levels among various sources by issuing a revised permit to install. We need not reach the merits of this argument because the sole matter before this Court is whether the petition for judicial review was timely filed. We note that AK Steel's motion was filed pursuant to the wrong court rule. Subchapter 7.100 of the court rules governs circuit court appeals from an agency's decisions. MCR 7.110 states that "[m]otion practice in a circuit court appeal is governed by MCR 2.119" and may include "special motions identified in MCR 7.211(C)." Neither Subchapter 7.100 nor MCR 2.119 provides a party with the authority to file a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116 in a circuit court appeal. Rather, because MCR 7.104(A) states that "[t]he time limit for an appeal of right is jurisdictional," AK Steel's motion to dismiss should have instead been filed pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(2)(a), which states: "An appellee may file a motion to dismiss an appeal ... on the ground that the appeal is not within the [circuit court's appellate] jurisdiction[.]" "Any person may appeal the issuance or denial by the department of a permit to install ... for a new source in accordance with ... [MCL 600.631 ]. Petitions for review shall be the exclusive means to obtain judicial review of such a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action .... Appeals of permit actions for existing sources are subject to section 5506(14)." MCL 324.5505(8). "A person who owns or operates an existing source that is required to obtain an operating permit under this section ... may file a petition with the department for review of [specifically listed permit actions]. This review shall be conducted pursuant to the contested case and judicial review procedures of ... [MCL] 24.201 to [MCL] 24.328.... Any person may appeal the issuance or denial of an operating permit in accordance with ... [MCL 600.631 ]. A petition for judicial review is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of a permit and shall be filed within 90 days after the final permit action." MCL 324.5506(14). While an operating permit is not expressly defined, it generally allows the DEQ to engage in ongoing monitoring of emissions from a source of air pollution. If an operating permit is required for a source of emissions by the Clean Air Act, then a person may not operate that source without applying for and complying with an operating permit issued by the DEQ. See MCL 324.5506(1). The parties do not dispute that the contested permit was issued for an existing source as the term is used in the NREPA. Therefore, it is unnecessary to address any distinctions between a new and existing source. We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary disposition de novo. See Maiden v. Rozwood , 461 Mich. 109, 118, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). We also review questions of law de novo. As we noted earlier, AK Steel should have filed its motion pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(2)(a). Such a motion is a motion to dismiss an appeal , rather than a motion for summary disposition. However, "[m]otions to dismiss or affirm or for peremptory reversal essentially are the appellate versions of a motion for summary disposition. Motions to dismiss basically present jurisdictional arguments why the court should not consider the appeal." 6 Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice, Text (6th ed.), § 7110.1, p. 37. It follows that a motion to dismiss an appeal based on a jurisdictional argument, which presents a purely legal issue, is analogous to a motion for summary disposition and should also be reviewed de novo. MCL 600.631 provides: An appeal shall lie from any order, decision, or opinion of any state board, commission, or agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules from which an appeal or other judicial review has not otherwise been provided for by law, to the circuit court of the county of which the appellant is a resident or to the circuit court of Ingham county, which court shall have and exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto as in nonjury cases. Such appeals shall be made in accordance with the rules of the supreme court. The Legislature subsequently amended MCL 247.183 by enacting 2005 PA 103. See, e.g., MCL 324.5512(1) ("Subject to section 5514 , the department shall promulgate rules for purposes of doing all of the following ....") (emphasis added). According to MCL 324.5514, the DEQ is prohibited from promulgating rules limiting emissions from wood heaters or enforcing federal regulations imposing such limitations. Thus, when the DEQ promulgates rules pursuant to MCL 324.5512(1), it must look to MCL 324.5514 for further restrictions on the potential subject matter of those rules. We note that it might be argued that permit actions could be read to include actions other than the issuance or denial of a permit, such as modification or revocation. As this appeal arises from the DEQ's decision to issue a permit to install, we need not decide whether other possible types of permit actions are also included. We agree with the dissent that the placement of the fourth sentence in MCL 324.5506(14) within that provision is a relevant consideration; however, it is not dispositive. As our opinion explains, when MCL 324.5505(8) and MCL 324.5506(14) are read together, the plain language of the statutes demonstrates that "a permit" should not be read as referring to only "an operating permit" as described in the preceding sentence. Our interpretation is consistent with the whole-text canon, "which calls on the judicial interpreter to consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts." Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012), p. 167. Reviewing the entire text requires consideration of the relationship of text within a single statutory provision as well as its relationship to the text of other provisions within the same act. See G. C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. , 468 Mich. 416, 421, 662 N.W.2d 710 (2003). "Any" means "one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity[.]" Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.). See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Freeman , 432 Mich. 656, 743-744, 443 N.W.2d 734 (1989) ( Cavanagh , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (opining that whether the article "a" should be read as referring to one or many is dependent on the context of its usage). We have also repeatedly recognized the significance of using a definite article to indicate the inverse-that a word should be read restrictively. See, e.g., Massey v. Mandell , 462 Mich. 375, 382 n. 5, 614 N.W.2d 70 (2000) (noting that when the Legislature has qualified the same word with the definite article "the" and the indefinite article "a" in the same part of a statute, the Court should not read "the" as if it were "a"). The dissent does not disagree with our conclusion that the meaning of the indefinite article "a" must be determined from its context, but the dissent instead suggests that "a permit" should be read as recognizing that there may be multiple "permits of the singular species identified in the preceding sentence ...." It is true that "a" can refer to a plural or singular antecedent depending on the context of its use, but that does not affect our analysis. The fact that a single facility may have more than one operating permit or that one might seek judicial review of more than one permit simultaneously does not answer the question of whether the sentence describing the timing for judicial review of "a permit" refers to permits other than an operating permit. Rather, when viewing the term in context, "a permit" is more reasonably read as referring to operating permits as well as those other permits for an existing source that are referred over to MCL 324.5506(14) by the last sentence of MCL 324.5505(8). The named permits are operating permits, permits to install, general permits, and permits to operate authorized under rules promulgated pursuant to MCL 324.5505(6). Currently, no administrative rules exist that govern a permit-to-operate program, but such permits remain legally distinct from operating permits. See, e.g., MCL 324.5515(1) ("If the department believes that a person is violating ... a permit issued under this part, ... the department shall make a prompt investigation."); MCL 324.5510 ("In accordance with this part and rules promulgated under this part, the department may, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, deny or revoke a permit issued under this part if any of the following circumstances exist[.]"). See MCL 324.5502(1) ("Except as provided in subsection (2), the department shall not issue a permit to install or an operating permit to a municipal solid waste incinerator unless ...."). Even assuming that a conflict existed between the first part of MCL 324.5505(8) and the fourth sentence of MCL 324.5506(14), the more specific language concerning new sources in the former would control over the more general language in the latter. See People v. Calloway , 500 Mich. 180, 185-186, 895 N.W.2d 165 (2017). Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1201 and R 336.1210. Part 55 also permits the MDEQ to create a nonrenewable permit to operate "for sources, processes, or process equipment that are not subject to the requirement to obtain a renewable operating permit," but the MDEQ does not currently issue any such nonrenewable operating permits. MCL 324.5505(6). In the past, the issuance of a permit to install was followed by the application for and issuance of a permit to operate. The need for a permit to operate for sources has been eliminated. Mich. Admin. Code, R 336.1116 (g) ("The requirement to obtain a permit to operate was removed from these rules effective July 26, 1995. Permits to operate issued before that date remain in effect and legally enforceable unless they are voided pursuant to R 336.1201(6)."). Additionally, MCL 324.5542(1) permits municipalities to establish their own air quality standards and regulations so long as they are at least as stringent as state regulations and federal standards. See MDEQ, Permit to Install Workbook: A Practical Guide to Completing an Air Permit Application (revised January 2016), pp. 3-2, 4-1, 4-7, available at < https://perma.cc/R8K8-73B7>. EPA, The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How It Works (March 22, 2013), p. 1, available at < https://perma.cc/NZ2S-PWLU>; see also 42 USC 7411 (establishing pollution control standards applicable to new stationary and mobile sources). Levinson, Grandfather Regulations, New Source Bias, and State Air Toxics Regulations , 28 Ecological Econ. 299, 300 (1999) (citation omitted); see also HR Rep. No. 95-294, at 185 (1977), as reprinted in 1977 USCCAN 1077, 1264 (indicating that pollution control equipment was not required of older sources because of the expense of retrofitting existing sources and the perceived economic unfairness resulting from a retrofit requirement). Grandfather Regulations , 28 Ecological Econ. at 300. At oral argument, the MDEQ's counsel acknowledged that petitioners have alleged that their members, who live near the steel mill at issue, have suffered particularized injuries as a result of the MDEQ's decision to issue the PTI. See Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc. , 479 Mich. 280, 296; 737 N.W.2d 447 (2007) ("A nonprofit organization has standing to bring suit in the interest of its members if its members would have standing as individual plaintiffs."), overruled on other grounds by Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass'n, MEA/NEA v. Lansing Bd. of Ed. , 487 Mich. 349, 792 N.W.2d 686 (2010). Specifically, the MDEQ agrees that petitioners have alleged that their members have been injured by an increase in air pollutants that resulted from the MDEQ's decision to issue the permit. Accordingly, because petitioners have made general factual allegations that injury will result from the MDEQ's conduct, and because this case is still in the pleading phase, this allegation is sufficient to demonstrate standing. South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass'n v. Dep't Of Environmental Quality , 316 Mich. App. 265, 277 n. 3, 891 N.W.2d 233 (2016) ("[N]otice was provided of the public comment period, which was held from February 12, 2014, through March 19, 2014, and of the public hearing, which was held on March 19, 2014.").