Curry v. Jackson Circuit Court, Docket Nos. 71772

• Decision Date: 15 August 1986
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 71772,76163
• Citation: 151 Mich.App. 754,391 N.W.2d 476
• Parties: Christopher David CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant-Appellee. Frederic GRASFEDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSON CIRCUIT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee. 151 Mich.App. 754, 391 N.W.2d 476
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 476

391 N.W.2d 476

Christopher David CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant-Appellee.

Frederic GRASFEDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JACKSON CIRCUIT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 71772, 76163.

151 Mich.App. 754, 391 N.W.2d 476

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 5, 1985.

Decided May 20, 1986.

Released for Publication Aug. 15, 1986.

[151 MICHAPP 755] Christopher David Curry, in pro. per.

Frederick Lee Grasfeder, in pro. per.

Gordon W. Britten, Chief Judge, 4th Judicial Circuit, Jackson, for defendant-appellee in Curry.

[151 MICHAPP 756] Joseph A. Greenleaf, Chief Appellate Atty., Jackson, for defendant-appellee in Grasfeder.

Before MAHER, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and DENEWETH ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are called upon to determine whether under Sec. 10(1) of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. Sec. 15.240(1); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(10)(1), a prisoner in the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson County is, as a matter of law, a resident of Jackson County or a resident of the last county in which he resided before he was imprisoned.

Pursuant to the FOIA, plaintiffs Curry and Grasfeder, inmates at the Jackson State Prison, made written requests for documents to the Allegan County Sheriff and the Highland Park Police Department, respectively. Their requests were denied. Thereafter, each plaintiff filed a complaint in the Jackson County Circuit Court. Curry's papers were returned to him, along with a letter from the deputy court clerk informing him that the proper place to file the complaint was the Allegan County Circuit Court. Grasfeder's papers were returned to him along with a note from a circuit court judge informing him that he had to file his complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court.

On June 3, 1983, Curry filed a complaint for superintending control with this Court. Curry's complaint was originally dismissed on November 16, 1983, but upon Curry's motion for rehearing, this Court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. However, because review by appeal was available, the complaint for superintending control should have been dismissed. GCR 1963, 711.4(b), now MCR 3.302(D). [151 MICHAPP 757] Nevertheless, we shall treat this case as if leave to appeal was applied for and granted. GCR 1963, 820.1(7), now MCR 7.216(A)(7).

On March 9, 1984, Grasfeder filed a complaint for superintending control. This Court treated the complaint as an application for leave to appeal and on July 30, 1984, leave was granted.

Section 10(1) of the Michigan FOIA provides in pertinent part:

"If a public body makes a final determination to deny a request or a portion thereof, the requesting person may commence an action in the circuit court to compel disclosure of the public records. If the court determines that the public records are not exempt from disclosure, the court shall order the public body to cease withholding or to produce a public record or a portion thereof wrongfully withheld, regardless of the location of the public record. The circuit court for the county in which the complainant resides or has his principal place of business, or the circuit court for the county in which the public record or an office of the public body is located shall have jurisdiction to issue the order." (Emphasis supplied.)

The issue in these cases is whether inmates at the State Prison of Southern Michigan are Jackson County residents for purposes of suit under the FOIA. The answer to the issue raised depends upon the meaning assigned to the term "resides" in Sec. 10(1).

In Kubiak v. Steen, 51 Mich.App. 408, 215 N.W.2d 195 (1974), this Court recognized that the term "resides" has two different meanings. In its "legal" or technical sense, the term "reside" means:

" * * * legal domicile as distinguished from mere residence or place of actual abode. In this sense the word 'reside' means legal residence; legal [151 MICHAPP 758] domicile, or the home of a person in contemplation of law; the place where a person is deemed in law to live, which may not always be the place of his actual dwelling, and thus the term may mean something different from being bodily present, and does not necessarily refer to the place of actual abode. When employed in this sense, the word 'reside' includes not only physical presence in a place, but also the accompanying intent of choosing that place as a permanent residence." 51 Mich.App. 413, 215 N.W.2d 195.

In its "popular" sense, "reside" means:

" * * * the personal, actual, or physical habitation of a person; actual residence or place of abode; and it signifies being physically present in a place and actually staying there. In this sense the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, and it does not mean legal residence or domicile." 51 Mich.App. 414, 215 N.W.2d 195.

In Paprocki v. Jackson County Clerk, 142 Mich.App. 785, 789-790, 371 N.W.2d 450 (1985), a panel of this Court held that the term "resides" as used within Sec. 10(1) of the FOIA means a person's legal residence and refers to the place where a prisoner last lived before being sent to prison.

We agree with the Paprocki panel that the term "resides" as used within the statute should be given its legal meaning. Section 10(1) is not a venue provision, but, rather, confers jurisdiction upon particular circuit courts. When used in statutes conferring jurisdiction, residence is interpreted to mean domicile. Paprocki, supra, p. 790, 371 N.W.2d 450, citing Leader v. Leader, 73 Mich.App. 276, 280, 251 N.W.2d 288 (1977), and In re Fox Estate, 3 Mich.App. 501, 507, 142 N.W.2d 866 (1966). We are persuaded, as was the Paprocki panel, that the term "resides" as used in Sec. 10(1) of the FOIA must be interpreted to mean a person's legal residence.

[151 MICHAPP 759] We disagree, however, with the Paprocki panel's conclusion that as a matter of law a prisoner "resides" in the county where he last lived before being sent to prison. The issue of a person's domicile is principally a question of intent, and is resolved by reference to all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Choike v. Detroit, 94 Mich.App. 703, 707, 290...