Gloria Kato Karungi v. Ronald Lee Ejalu
337152
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- The parties, unmarried parents of a child with sickle cell disease, created and cryopreserved embryos via IVF in 2015; both signed clinic contracts naming the embryos as "joint property."
- Plaintiff seeks to implant an embryo and use the newborn’s cord blood to treat their daughter; defendant withdrew consent to proceed with IVF.
- The embryo dispute arose during an existing family support ("DS") case; a consent judgment resolving child support/time preserved the "embryo issue" for the trial court.
- Plaintiff moved for "custody" of the embryos in the family support case; defendant moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted defendant’s motion, ruling it lacked authority under the Family Support Act to decide embryo custody.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court mischaracterized the matter, noting the parties’ signed contracts included an arbitration clause and treated embryos as joint property.
- Because the record is undeveloped (e.g., whether arbitration was waived or the contract was modified by conduct), the Court remanded for the family division to determine subject-matter jurisdiction over the contract dispute and to receive evidence if jurisdiction exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to resolve the embryo dispute in the pending DS case | Karungi treated the embryos as subject to a custody determination by the family court and preserved the issue in the consent judgment | Ejalu argued the Family Support Act does not authorize resolving embryo disposition in a support case; court lacked authority | Court held the trial court erred to base lack of jurisdiction solely on the DS caption; classification depends on relief sought, not caption; remanded for further determination |
| Whether the dispute is governed by the parties’ clinic contracts (including arbitration) | Karungi sought judicial relief extinguishing Ejalu’s interest, effectively asking the court to adjudicate property rights in the embryos | Ejalu relied on contract terms and the Family Support Act to argue the court lacked authority in the support context | Court found the contracts treat embryos as "joint property" and contain an arbitration clause; trial court should have treated it as a contract dispute and addressed contract issues |
| Whether arbitration clause bars the court action (and whether it was waived) | Karungi implicitly sought court resolution despite arbitration clause; argued equitable need for access to court to secure treatment for the child | Ejalu relied on the arbitration provision to preclude judicial resolution | Court declined to decide arbitration/enforceability on the record because it is undeveloped (possible waiver or modification by conduct) and remanded for factual development |
| Appropriate remedy now | Karungi asked reversal and award of custody/implantation rights | Ejalu sought dismissal of judicial claims and enforcement of contract/arbitration | Court remanded to family division to determine (1) subject-matter jurisdiction over the contract dispute and (2) factual issues (e.g., waiver) with directions to allow evidence; did not retain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Bouwman, 251 Mich. App. 136 (recognizing relief sought controls characterization, not caption)
- Stamp v. Mill Street Inn, 152 Mich. App. 290 (same rule on focusing on relief requested)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Wesco Distribution, 281 Mich. App. 240 (unambiguous contracts are enforced as written)
- Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Birmingham, 479 Mich. 206 (upholding freedom to arrange affairs via contract; unambiguous contracts enforced unless unlawful or against public policy)
- Salesin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 229 Mich. App. 346 (discussing waiver of arbitration issues)
- Port Huron Ed. Ass’n v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist., 452 Mich. 309 (past practice can imply amendment to unambiguous contract)
- Campbell v. St. John Hosp., 434 Mich. 608 (presumption of circuit court jurisdiction; statutes must clearly divest jurisdiction)
- Grebner v. Clinton Charter Twp., 216 Mich. App. 736 (remand to develop factual record when necessary for appropriate relief)
- Bowie v. Arder, 441 Mich. 23 (venue and potential voidness of orders entered by improper division)
- Fred J. Schwaemmle Constr. Co. v. Dept. of Commerce, Corp. & Sec. Bureau, 420 Mich. 66 (courts may decline to decide unnecessary issues)