Estate of James Armour II v. Rodney W Hall
331800
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- In July 2013 Rodney Hall (a New Mexico resident) collided with James Armour II in Lake County, Michigan; Armour later died and Joanne Dawley sued Hall individually and as personal representative of Armour’s estate.
- Dawley filed in Wayne County under MCL 600.1621(b); Hall moved to transfer venue to Lake County (collision site) or Mason County, claiming he conducted business in Mason County via Barothy Lodge. Wayne Circuit Court transferred the case to Mason County.
- Discovery showed Barothy Lodge was owned by Hall Investments, LLC (a Michigan LLC). Hall was a member of the LLC (one of nine) and testified he “runs” the resort 5–6 months a year, handling mail, contractor issues, and guest matters; full‑time managers operate year‑round.
- Dawley moved in Mason County to return the case to Wayne County, arguing Hall did not personally conduct business in Mason County. Mason Circuit Court denied the motion; Dawley obtained interlocutory review.
- The core legal question: do Hall’s LLC membership and his seasonal, agent‑type operational activities constitute that he personally “conducts business” in Mason County for venue under MCL 600.1621(a)?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall personally "conducts business" in Mason County for venue under MCL 600.1621(a) | Dawley: Hall does not personally conduct business in Mason County; his activities are on behalf of the LLC so venue is not proper there | Hall: His LLC membership plus active seasonal management of Barothy Lodge amount to personally conducting business in Mason County | Held: No. Membership and agent activities for the LLC do not establish that Hall personally conducts business in Mason County; venue under MCL 600.1621(a) is not met |
| Whether Mason Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear Dawley’s motion to transfer after the Wayne court changed venue | Dawley: Transferee court (Mason) had jurisdiction to entertain the motion | Hall: Wayne court should have reconsidered; Mason lacked jurisdiction | Held: Mason Circuit Court had jurisdiction as the transferee court after the venue change |
| Whether ownership interests or agency duties can be treated as personal conduct of business for venue | Dawley: LLC is a separate entity; ownership/agency do not equate to personal conduct | Hall: His active operational role and membership functionally amount to his conducting business | Held: Ownership and agency ordinarily attribute actions to the LLC, not the individual; without veil‑piercing evidence, cannot treat those acts as Hall’s personal business |
| Whether plaintiff’s preferred forum should control when competing venue statutes apply | Dawley: If subdivision (a) fails, venue lies in plaintiff’s county under subdivision (b) | Hall: Venue proper in Mason if he conducts business there | Held: With (a) not satisfied, venue lies in Wayne under MCL 600.1621(b); plaintiff’s chosen forum deserves deference per precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Hills & Dales General Hospital v Pantig, 295 Mich App 14 (2011) (LLC ownership of membership interests does not by itself constitute conducting business for venue)
- Frankfurth v Detroit Med Ctr, 297 Mich App 654 (2012) (after venue transfer, transferee court has full jurisdiction over the action)
- Salem Springs, LLC v Salem Twp, 312 Mich App 210 (2015) (corporate/LLC form and manager/agent principles explained)
- Farwell v May, 437 Mich 953 (1991) (employment/activities in a county insufficient alone to show the individual conducts business there for venue)
- Stephenson v Golden, 279 Mich 710 (1937) (agent generally has no individual interest in principal’s transactions)
- Radeljak v Daimlerchrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598 (2006) (plaintiff’s forum preference should ordinarily be accorded deference)