Splaine v. Modern Electroplating, Inc.

• Citation: 460 N.E.2d 1306,17 Mass.App.Ct. 612
• Parties: Richard T. SPLAINE v. MODERN ELECTROPLATING, INC.
• Decision Date: 03 May 1984
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1306

460 N.E.2d 1306

17 Mass.App.Ct. 612

Richard T. SPLAINE v. MODERN ELECTROPLATING, INC.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts,

Suffolk.

Argued Feb. 14, 1984.

Decided March 13, 1984.

Further Appellate Review Denied

May 3, 1984.

Donald M. Hadge, Dedham, for defendant.

Margaret A. O'Reilly, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before GREANEY, C.J., and CUTTER and WARNER, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

Splaine, a resident of Michigan, recovered $8,431.02 by a default judgment in an action in Michigan against Modern Electroplating, Inc., Classic Chrome division (Chrome). An action was brought on the Michigan judgment against Chrome in the Superior Court in Massachusetts. Chrome admitted in its answer that it had received in June, 1981, a summons and complaint in the Michigan action. These it apparently disregarded. Splaine and Chrome each filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Massachusetts action. The docket shows that each such motion was denied. The trial judge seems to have treated the motions essentially as seeking summary judgment, which he granted for Splaine. From that judgment, in the amount of the Michigan judgment plus interest, Chrome has appealed. The facts are stated on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits of Splaine and of Fred J. Saltzberg, general manager of Chrome.

Splaine's letterhead shows him to be operating in Grand Rapids, Michigan, apparently as a dealer in "parts ... and other items of interest to ... collectors of Mercedes cars". He had seen advertisements by Chrome "in magazines directed toward persons interested in refurbishing automobiles," including Hemming's Motor News, a magazine which circulates to the group indicated. In response to such an advertisement, Splaine inquired of Saltzberg (then apparently in Massachusetts at Chrome's only place of business) about the cost of replating chrome parts for a 1961 Mercedes automobile. Saltzberg, in reply to Splaine's inquiry, suggested that the parts be sent to Chrome so that an estimate could be given. Shortly after the parts were submitted to Chrome, one of its employees gave Splaine an estimate for the work of a maximum of $850 plus $15.58 for shipping and insurance. There was an agreement that the work would be "show quality" and "would be completed within four to six weeks." Splaine "received the parts ... eleven weeks later ... with a c.o.d. shipping charge of $494.16." Splaine "determined that the parts had been ruined by" Chrome and complained to Saltzberg about "the unsatisfactory work." Saltzberg asked that the parts be returned to Chrome for inspection. The parts again were sent to Chrome and, "after several additional phone calls and conversations," they were returned to Splaine about three months later in the same condition they had been in when first sent by Chrome to Splaine. There is no showing that Chrome directly acted outside of Massachusetts at any time and one of Saltzberg's affidavits asserts that Chrome has engaged in no commercial or other activity in Michigan.

Splaine initiated all contacts with Chrome, except that Chrome "may have" called Splaine once in response to the latter's request for an estimate. By affidavit Chrome claimed not to advertise in the publications mentioned by Splaine to solicit business in Michigan but only to solicit business in Massachusetts and that it had no contact with Splaine "through the mail except for the return shipment of" Splaine's property.

1. We assume that Michigan by enacting Mich.Comp.Laws §§ 600.705 and 600 715 (1979), ¹ has attempted to subject nonresidents to Michigan's full potential limited jurisdiction over nonresidents. See Sifers v. Horen, 385 Mich. 195, 198-200, 188 N.W.2d 623, and dissent at 204, 188 N.W.2d 623 (1971). See also Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1236-1237 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and cases cited. We may give full faith and credit to the Michigan judgment, however, only if Chrome had "minimum contacts" with Michigan sufficient to permit the Michigan court to exercise jurisdiction over it, as a matter of due process, under the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Judicial Court. See McDade v. Moynihan, 330 Mass. 437, 442-443, 115 N.E.2d 372 (1953); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 100, but contrast § 103 (1971), and Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 81, comment a (1982). See also Tucker v. Columbian Natl. Life Ins. Co., 232 Mass. 224, 229-231, 122 N.E. 285 (1919).

2. In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are reviewed. The opinion states the general rule as follows (citations omitted): "[A] state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum State.... The concept of minimum contacts ... perform[s] two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system .... [T]he defendant's contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit 'does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " ... The relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is 'reasonable ... to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there.' " ²

The facts of the present case are near the border line between those recognized as conferring upon a forum State (as matter of due process) jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant and the facts in cases denying such jurisdiction. We regard the contacts of Chrome with Michigan as possibly somewhat more significant than those considered in the World-Wide Volkswagen case, 444 U.S. at 297-299, 100 S.Ct. at 567-568. Those contacts with Michigan, however, seem somewhat less than the quasi-in-rem contacts of the then defendants with Delaware, dealt with in the several opinions in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 200-228, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2577-2592, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977).

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-256, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1237-1241, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), rests on special facts. Jurisdiction of the Florida courts over a Delaware trust company was denied where the trust company's contacts with Florida were merely that Florida was the residence of some beneficiaries of a trust held by that company as trustee and the place where a power of appointment under the trust was exercised. ³

In McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 221-223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 200-201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), the nonresident corporate insurer (at 221, 78 S.Ct. at 200) had solicited a "reinsurance" contract from a resident of California, who had paid premiums by mail to the insurer at its Texas office. The contacts with California in the McGee case, held adequate in the circumstances to confer jurisdiction on the California courts to enforce the contract, are to be compared with those treated as inadequate to confer jurisdiction on the California courts, in Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 94-97, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1698-1699, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). There a separated wife of a husband resident in New York sought in California, where she resided, a modification of a separation agreement made in New York. The McGee case was distinguished ⁴ in the Kulko case (436 U.S. at 97-98, 98 S.Ct. at 1699-1700) as one where the nonresident defendant had "sought a commercial benefit from solicitation of business from a resident of California that could reasonably render ... [the defendant] liable to suit in state court." In the Kulko case, it was mentioned also (see note 4, supra ) that, unlike the McGee situation, "California has not attempted to assert any particularized interest in trying such cases [separation agreement modifications] in its courts by, e.g., enacting a special jurisdictional statute" (436 U.S. at 98, 98 S.Ct. at 1700). ⁵ The McGee case appears to be the Supreme Court decision most favorable to Splaine's contentions before us. ⁶

The relevant Massachusetts decisions adhere closely to the principles stated in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The basis on which Splaine asserts that Chrome is subject to Michigan's long-arm statute seems to be that Chrome has met the requirement (see note 1, supra ) of "the transaction of any business within" Michigan. In comparable cases under the Massachusetts long-arm statute (see note 1, supra ) the same question has arisen, under G.L. c. 223A, § 3(a ), as amended through St.1976, c. 435, when it has become necessary to determine whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts because of that corporation's "transacting any business in this commonwealth." ⁷ The question before us is essentially whether the record shows that Chrome has transacted business in Michigan.

In Good Hope Indus. Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1, 389 N.E.2d 76 (1979), a Massachusetts corporation engaged a Texas corporation to appraise leasehold interests in oil properties owned in Texas by the Massachusetts corporation and its affiliates. The Texas corporation made nine such reports to the Massachusetts company in the course of a year, during which it initiated fifty-two telephone calls to persons employed by the Massachusetts company and sent seventeen invoices to it. The Supreme Judicial Court recognized (at 7, 389 N.E.2d 76) that the controlling principle was "whether there was some minimum contact with the Commonwealth which resulted from an affirmative, intentional act of the ... [Texas corporation], such that it is fair and reasonable to...