In Kreis v Bedford, Unpublished Opinion in the Court of Appeals, (issued 11/10/2011, No. 300183) plaintiff argued that because she acted in propria persona, she should not have been expected to strictly comply with the provisions of the court rules concerning motion practice and motions for summary disposition. She also suggests that the circuit court should have informed her how to conduct discovery and how to properly oppose plaintiff's motion for summary disposition. She claims that she had an absolute right to proceed in propria persona, and that by holding her to the same exacting standards as a practicing lawyer, the circuit court effectively interfered with her right to procedural due process. The Court of Appeals did not agree.
Without question, litigants have a constitutionally guaranteed right to proceed in propria persona in the courts of this state. Const 1963, art 1, § 13; see also Shenkman v Bragman, 261 Mich App 412, 416 (2004). However, it is well settled that individuals who represent themselves in
's courts are held to the same standards as members of the state bar. Baird v Baird, 368 Mich 536, 539 (1962); Totman v Royal Oak School Dist, 135 Mich App 121, 126 (1984). The Court will not overlook a party's tactical errors or consider documentary evidence that was not submitted to the trial court merely because a party acted in propria persona. Amorello v Monsanto Corp, 186 Mich App 324 (1990); Bachor v Detroit, 49 Mich App 507, 512 (1973). When a litigant elects to proceed without counsel, the litigant is "bound by the burdens that accompany such election." Hoven v Hoven, 9 Mich App 168, 174 (1967). Michigan