Rainsberger v. McFadden

• Decision Date: 15 March 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 104080
• Citation: 436 N.W.2d 412,174 Mich.App. 660
• Parties: Sandra Sue RAINSBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shawn C.T. McFADDEN, Defendant-Appellee. 174 Mich.App. 660, 436 N.W.2d 412
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 412

436 N.W.2d 412

Sandra Sue RAINSBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shawn C.T. McFADDEN, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 104080.

174 Mich.App. 660, 436 N.W.2d 412

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted May 9, 1988.

Decided Feb. 6, 1989.

Released for Publication March 15, 1989.

[174 MICHAPP 661] Susan E. Vandercook, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bruce A. Barton, Jackson, for defendant-appellee.

Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and WAHLS and JACKSON, ^* JJ.

JACKSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Sandra Sue Rainsberger, filed a paternity suit in Jackson Circuit Court on April 17, 1987, alleging that defendant, Shawn McFadden, is the father of her child born August 5, 1980, and that the child was conceived in Canada during November, 1979. Defendant, a resident of Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario, Canada, was personally served with the summons and complaint on August 4, 1987. After being served, defendant requested and received the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, who filed a special appearance to object to the court's jurisdiction and moved to [174 MICHAPP 662] quash service of process and for summary disposition. The trial court granted defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals as of right. We affirm.

Plaintiff contends that, by force of case law, the Michigan long-arm statute, M.C.L. Sec. 600.705; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705, gives the Michigan court limited personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this paternity action. Additionally, plaintiff contends that defendant waived any objection to the court's jurisdiction when he requested the appointment of an attorney.

For limited personal jurisdiction to attach, the cause of action must arise from the circumstances creating the jurisdictional relationship between the defendant and the foreign state. Lazzaro v. Charlevoix Lakes, 108 Mich.App. 120, 123-134, 310 N.W.2d 295 (1981). Michigan's long-arm statute, M.C.L. Sec. 600.705; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705, provides for limited personal jurisdiction over nonresident individuals under certain circumstances. It reads, 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:

* * * * * *

"(2) The doing or causing an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort."

This statute has been construed as giving the courts the broadest grant of jurisdiction consistent [174 MICHAPP 663] with due process. McGraw v. Parsons, 142 Mich.App. 22, 25, 369 N.W.2d 251 (1985), lv. den. 423 Mich. 860 (1985). But see Witbeck v. Bill Cody's Ranch Inn, 428 Mich. 659, 666, n. 3, 411 N.W.2d 439 (1987) (recognizing a distinction between constitutional and statutory issues affecting jurisdiction).

Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the state so that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano Co., 480 U.S. 102, 104-105, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1029, 94 L.Ed.2d 92, 100 (1987); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Witbeck, supra, 428 Mich. at p. 666, 411 N.W.2d 439; Khalaf v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 404 Mich. 134, 146, 273 N.W.2d 811 (1978).

This Court has established a three-part test for determining whether under a given set of circumstances sufficient minimum contacts exist between a nonresident defendant and the state to support the due process requirements of limited personal jurisdiction. McGraw, supra, 142 Mich.App. at p. 26, 369 N.W.2d 251. First, the defendant must purposefully act in or towards the state, thus availing himself of the protection and benefits of its laws; second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities in the state; and third, the defendant's activities must be substantially connected with the state so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him would be reasonable. One important factor bearing upon reasonableness is whether the defendant would anticipate that his actions in the state would result in his being haled into court there. McGraw, supra, at p. 26, 369 N.W.2d 251, and see Witbeck, supra, 428 Mich. at p. 667, 411 N.W.2d 439. Other factors bearing upon reasonableness include the burden [174 MICHAPP 664] which would be placed on the defendant, the interest of the state in the matter, and the interest of the plaintiff in obtaining relief. Asahi Metal, 480 U.S. at 113-114, 107 S.Ct. at 1033-1034, 94 L.Ed.2d at 105.

As support for her contention that personal jurisdiction over defendant is proper under M.C.L. Sec. 600.705(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.705(2), plaintiff relies on Black v. Rasile, 113 Mich.App. 601, 604, 318 N.W.2d 475 (1980), lv. den. 411 Mich. 987 (1981). The Black Court found that the tortious act within the state which established the basis for jurisdiction under the long-arm statute was the putative father's failure to support the child as required by M.C.L. Sec. 722.712(a); M.S.A. Sec. 25.492(a). The Black Court based its opinion on an Illinois paternity case, Poindexter v. Willis, 87 Ill.App.2d 213, 231 N.E.2d 1 (1967), wherein the Illinois court found that the tortious act which subjected the nonresident defendant to personal jurisdiction was the failure to support the child. The judgment in that case was later given full faith and credit in Poindexter v. Willis, 23 Ohio Misc. 199, 256 N.E.2d 254 (1970), wherein the Ohio court found that the defendant's failure to support the child established the minimum contacts necessary to support personal jurisdiction in Illinois.

Plaintiff also contends that the exercise of personal jurisdiction authorized by Black, supra, would be reasonable under the due process guidelines outlined in Asahi Metal, supra, since (1) the burden on defendant would not be great because Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, is close to Michigan, (2) the state has an interest in the matter because the child is a resident, and the state could become obligated to support the child, and (3) plaintiff has an interest in obtaining financial and social support for the child.

By contrast, defendant contends that the court [174 MICHAPP 665] cannot properly exercise personal jurisdiction over him to adjudicate the issue of paternity. He argues that the logic of the Black decision should be reexamined and rejected in light of later case law in the relevant jurisdictions. Defendant points out that the rationale of Black has been repudiated by the two jurisdictions, Illinois and Ohio, on whose decision it was based. In People v. Flieger, 125 Ill.App.3d 604, 80 Ill.Dec. 739, 465 N.E.2d 1376 (1984), aff'd 106 Ill.2d 546, 88 Ill.Dec. 640, 478 N.E.2d 1366 (1985), the Illinois court declined to follow its earlier holding in Poindexter, supra, and held that the defendant had insufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. The court stated that the reasoning in Poindexter was faulty because it assumed as true facts which the plaintiff was trying to prove. Noting that the legal duty to support a child commences only after paternity is established and that a breach of this duty cannot be assumed in order to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant to decide if the duty even exists, the court held that the residence in the state of a child alleged to be that of the defendant, when that is the only contact between the defendant and the state, does not establish sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In State ex rel. Stone v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Co., Juvenile Div., 14 Ohio St.3d 32, 470 N.E.2d 899 (1984), the Ohio court rejected Poindexter, supra, for the same reasons as did the Illinois court in Flieger, supra.

Further, defendant argues that he has insufficient minimum contacts with Michigan to allow the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him in accordance with the requirements of due process. He contends that (1) he has not [174 MICHAPP 666] purposefully acted in or directed any activity towards the state so as to avail himself of the protection of its laws, (2) that the...