Shock Bros., Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc.
| Citation | 311 N.W.2d 722,411 Mich. 696 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 65583 |
| Parties | SHOCK BROS., INC., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MORBARK INDUSTRIES, INC., a/k/a Mobark Industries, Inc., a MichiganCorporation, Defendant-Appellant. 411 Mich. 696, 311 N.W.2d 722 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Joseph E. Mihelich, East Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Warner, Norcross & Judd by Joseph G. Scoville and Eugene E. Smary, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant in this case filed a motion in Macomb Circuit Court in which a claim was made that venue in this action had been improperly laid. The circuit court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed that determination. 1 Although we agree with the result reached by the circuit court and by the Court of Appeals, we issue this opinion to correct a misperception of the standard of review by the Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff purchased a chip harvester machine from the defendant in 1975. In 1977 the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Macomb Circuit Court claiming, inter alia, that the machine had several defects which occasioned the payment of costs by the plaintiff and further deprived the plaintiff of business revenues.
The defendant answered the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint but also moved for a change of venue claiming that venue was improperly laid in Macomb County. GCR 1963, 404.
The circuit court, after examining the record which included affidavits, found that venue was properly laid in Macomb County.
The Court of Appeals, in affirming, originally referred to this motion as one brought under GCR 1963, 403. 2 In a subsequent order this error was corrected. However, the Court of Appeals made the following statement in its opinion:
The Court of Appeals then went on to find that the circuit court had not abused its discretion in denying the motion.
Hunter v. Doe, 61 Mich.App. 465, 233 N.W.2d 39 (1975), and Three Lakes Ass'n v. Whiting, 75 Mich.App. 564, 255 N.W.2d 686 (1977), are cases in which the question was whether venue should be changed though properly laid. The Court of Appeals decided that in such circumstances the standard of review is one of abuse of discretion. We need not decide the correctness of those decisions because that is not the situation here.
In the instant case, the claim was that venue was not properly laid. The circuit court, had it found that venue was improperly laid, would have had no discretion to refuse to transfer the case. Accordingly, the abuse of discretion standard is inapplicable. See DesJardin v. Lynn, 6 Mich.App. 439, 443, 149 N.W.2d 228 (1967). The Court of Appeals, in cases such as the instant one, must review the lower court's decision in order to determine whether that court clearly erred in ruling that venue was properly or improperly laid, not whether it abused its discretion.
We do not, however, remand this matter to the Court of Appeals. Our review of the record convinces us that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the decisions of the Macomb Circuit Court and of the Court of Appeals.
Costs to plaintiff.
1 97 Mich.App. 616, 296 N.W.2d 125 (1980), and order of July 15, 1980...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brightwell v. Fifth Third Bank Of Mich.
...unpub. op. at 3-4 (Gleicher, J., dissenting). 13Id. at 5. 14Brightwell v. Fifth Third Bank of Michigan, 485 Mich. 902, 776 N.W.2d 668 (2010). 15Shock Bros., Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 411 Mich. 696, 698-699, 311 N.W.2d 722 (1981). 16People v. Swafford, 483 Mich. 1, 7, 762 N.W.2d 902 ......
-
Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp. v. Pantig
...We review for clear error a circuit court's decision to grant or deny a motion to change venue. Shock Bros., Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 411 Mich. 696, 698–699, 311 N.W.2d 722 (1981). Clear error exists when some evidence supports the circuit court's finding, but a review of the entir......
-
Attorney General on Behalf of People ex rel. Michigan Dept. of Labor v. Kent County Road Com'n, 112409
...on whether venue is properly laid is reviewed to determine whether the court clearly erred. Shock Bros, Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc, 411 Mich. 696, 698-699, 311 N.W.2d 722 (1981); Marsh v. Walter L Couse & Co, 179 Mich.App. 204, 207, 445 N.W.2d 204 (1989). Our review of the statutes inv......
-
Catanese v. Heggen
...determine whether that court clearly erred in ruling that venue was properly or improperly laid. Shock Bros., Inc. v. Morbark Industries, Inc., 411 Mich. 696, 698-699, 311 N.W.2d 722 (1981). In the instant case, because venue had been properly laid in Wayne County, where plaintiff brought t......