Moore v. McFarland
| Decision Date | 16 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 116810 |
| Citation | 187 Mich.App. 214,466 N.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | Patricia MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry McFARLAND, Defendant-Appellant. 187 Mich.App. 214, 466 N.W.2d 309 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[187 MICHAPP 215] Robbins & Robbins, P.C. by Aimee C. Robbins, Birmingham, for plaintiff-appellee.
[187 MICHAPP 216] Karbel, Brukoff, Rothstein, Stewart & Wallace, P.C. by David Wallace, Southfield, for defendant-appellant.
Before MARK J. CAVANAGH, P.J., and McDONALD and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.
This is a paternity action. Defendant appeals by leave granted from the circuit court's order denying his motion for summary disposition based on lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse.
Plaintiff is the mother of a child born June 26, 1978. She alleges that defendant is the father. Plaintiff and her daughter now reside in Michigan. The child was conceived and born in Maryland while the plaintiff and defendant lived there. Defendant remains a resident of Maryland.
Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint on December 20, 1988. Plaintiff moved for paternity testing. Defendant responded with a motion for summary disposition alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that the failure of a nonresident putative father to support a child residing in this state is a tortious act. Such an act provides an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction. M.C.L. Sec. 600.705(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705(2); Black v. Rasile, 113 Mich.App. 601, 318 N.W.2d 475 (1980).
A motion for summary disposition alleging lack of personal jurisdiction is resolved on the basis of the pleadings and evidentiary support submitted by the parties. MCR 2.116(C)(1) and (G)(5); Hillsdale Co. Dep't of Social Services v. Lee, 175 Mich.App. 95, 96, 437 N.W.2d 293 (1989). The burden of establishing the necessary jurisdictional facts is on the plaintiff. Id. p. 97, 437 N.W.2d 293.
Michigan's long-arm statute gives our courts limited personal jurisdiction over nonresident individuals[187 MICHAPP 217] in certain circumstances. It provides in pertinent part:
The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable a court of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over the individual and to enable the court to render personal judgments against the individual or his representative arising out of an act which creates any of the following relationships:
(1) The transaction of any business within the state.
(2) The doing or causing an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort. [M.C.L. Sec. 600.705; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705.]
Plaintiff first claims that certain of defendant's activities constituted doing business in Michigan: engaging in phone calls with plaintiff in the state, mailing periodic support payments to her, and visiting her in March 1988 to discuss the child. We note that plaintiff did not allege these facts in her complaint and has not provided evidentiary support for them. However, even assuming the activities occurred, they did not constitute "doing business" in Michigan. The activities were of a strictly personal nature.
Alternatively, plaintiff asserts that defendant committed a tort in the state by failing to support his child.
In Black, a panel of this Court held that the failure to pay costs and support, not the act of conception, is what triggers a statutory cause of action for paternity. Black, 113 Mich.App. p. 604, 318 N.W.2d 475. Thus, the failure to support a child residing in Michigan is a tortious act which occurs within the state. M.C.L. Sec. 600.705(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705(2); Black, supra.
[187 MICHAPP 218] A subsequent panel of this Court rejected the reasoning in Black. Rainsberger v. McFadden, 174 Mich.App. 660, 436 N.W.2d 412 (1989). It noted that the rationale of Black had been repudiated by the two jurisdictions on whose decisions it was based. The reasoning in Black was faulty, because it assumed as true the very facts which the plaintiff was trying to prove. Paternity must be established before a legal duty arises to support a child. Rainsberger, 174 Mich.App. p. 665, 436 N.W.2d 412; Hillsdale, 175 Mich.App. pp. 98-99, 437 N.W.2d 293. In addition, the Black panel did not consider due process requirements which must be satisfied before the court can exercise personal jurisdiction. Rainsberger, 174 Mich.App. p. 668, 436 N.W.2d 412.
Regardless of whether the failure to pay child support constitutes a tort, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mozdy v. Lopez
...be so substantially connected with Michigan to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Moore v. McFarland, 187 Mich.App. 214, 218, 466 N.W.2d 309 (1991); Walter, 179 Mich.App. p. 413, 446 N.W.2d Although the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictio......
-
Marriage of Bushaw, In re
...Arm statute." Id. at 410. Other jurisdictions have arrived at the same conclusions regarding minimum contacts. Moore v. McFarland, 187 Mich.App. 214, 466 N.W.2d 309, 311 (1990) (insufficient minimum contacts where father only engaged in phone calls to mother, mailed periodic support payment......
-
Hilyard v. Johnston
...personal jurisdiction over the appellee consistent with the requirements of due process. See generally Moore v. McFarland , 187 Mich.App. 214, 217-219, 466 N.W.2d 309 (1990) ; Rainsberger v. McFadden , 174 Mich.App. 660, 666, 436 N.W.2d 412 (1989) ; Black v. Rasile , 113 Mich.App. 601, 604,......