People of State of Cal. v. Max Larsen, Inc., Docket Nos. 8918

• Decision Date: 24 March 1971
• Docket Number: 8919,Docket Nos. 8918,No. 3,3
• Citation: 31 Mich.App. 594,187 N.W.2d 911
• Parties: PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAX LARSEN, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARSEN TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 911

187 N.W.2d 911

31 Mich.App. 594

PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAX LARSEN, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARSEN TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 8918, 8919.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

March 24, 1971.

Released for Publication July 2, 1971.

William K. Holmes, Grand Rapids, Warner, Norcross & Judd, for defendants-appellants.

Robert L. Redmond, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and MUNRO ^*, JJ.

T. M. BURNS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, the State of California, sued defendant corporations separately in California for payment of that state's sales and use taxes. Process in each of the California suits was served on defendants in Michigan. Defendants did not appear in either suit and the California court entered default judgments. Thereafter, plaintiff brought suit in Michigan to enforce the California judgments and the trial court found in plaintiff's favor in each case. Defendants appeal both judgments, the appeals having been consolidated since the same questions are presented in both cases.

Defendants first contend that the trial court erred in refusing defendants' motion to amend their answers at the time of trial. GCR 1963, 118 provides:

'A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before or within 15 days after a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is required and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may amend it at any time before or within fifteen days after it is served. Otherwise, a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.'

The supplemental answer with which defendants sought to amend their pleading stated that the complaint in the California suit failed to state a cause of action. Defendants did not give the trial court, nor do they give this court, any reason for the delay in filing such an elementary defense. Absent some reason for failure to file such an answer, we see no reason for compelling plaintiff to meet an entirely new defense on the day of trial. The trial court did not abuse the discretion conferred upon it by the Court Rule by refusing to allow the defendants to amend their answer.

Defendants also contend that the trial court erred by failing to find that the California court did not have jurisdiction over the parties, and therefore the judgments are void and not entitled to full faith and credit. ¹ At the close of plaintiff's proofs, the defendants moved for directed verdicts on the ground that jurisdiction of the California court over defendants had not been proven. The court denied defendants' motions. The defendants offered no evidence and the trial court entered judgment against Max Larsen, Inc., in the amount of $2,901.32 plus interest and costs and against Larsen Transportation, Inc., in the amount of $1,007.36 plus interest and costs.

It is defendants' position that by asserting the defense of lack of jurisdiction in their answer, the burden of establishing jurisdiction was upon the plaintiff, a burden the plaintiff failed to carry. However, plaintiff has no such burden. The burden upon plaintiff is to prove that the judgment has been rendered in the California court. It is then the burden of the defendant to prove that the judgment of that court is void for want of jurisdiction. In Henry v. Henry (1960), 362 Mich. 85, 102, 106 N.W.2d 570, 578, the Supreme Court stated:

'We have no doubt, as appellant's counsel contend, that in attacking a presumptively valid decree of divorce issued by a sister State, the full faith and credit clause (U.S.Const. art. 4, § 1) and ample case precedent (citations omitted) demand that the attacking party bear the burden of proof that no domicile was established.'

Therefore, all plaintiff is required to establish is that the California court rendered the judgments in question. Then, since the judgments are presumed valid, ² it would be incumbent upon the defendants to successfully attack the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgments were taken. Absent defendants' successful attack upon jurisdiction, the courts in this state are bound by the United States Constitution to give the judgments full faith and credit.

Plaintiff, in the action below, in an attempt to establish that the judgments sued upon were actually...