Yoost v. Caspari
295 Mich. App. 209
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Yoost and Asher are Florida residents; Zalcberg and Caspari are Michigan residents; Yoost previously worked for Zalcberg and had a relation with Caspari; Fogarty Street property mortgage/loan from Zalcberg and Sari to Yoost; Yoost and Caspari resided in Michigan/Indiana, later moved to Michigan; Asher funded Yoost’s litigation and Yoost’s actions were alleged to be in Indiana/Michigan, including discovery and multiple lawsuits; Zalcberg counterclaims allege abuse of process and conspiracy to commit abuse of process; trial court held limited jurisdiction under MCL 600.705(2) and denied Asher’s motion for summary disposition; appellate court granted leave to appeal on jurisdictional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has limited personal jurisdiction over Asher under MCL 600.705(2). | Zalcberg asserted Asher conspired with Yoost to commit abuse of process in Michigan. | Asher contended he lacked Michigan contacts and did not cause a tort here. | No; prima facie case for jurisdiction not established; reversed. |
| Whether there is a prima facie case that Asher conspired with Yoost to cause a Michigan tort. | Zalcberg showed circumstantial evidence of control/coordination of litigation by Asher. | Asher denied conspiratorial control; Yoost’s statements were unreliable or insufficient. | Not proven; speculation insufficient to meet prima facie burden. |
| Whether MCL 600.705(1) provides an alternative basis for jurisdiction. | The transaction of any business within the state could justify jurisdiction. | No contract for services and no adequate tie to Michigan; not enough under this subsection. | Not satisfied; 600.705(1) does not authorize jurisdiction here. |
| Whether due process supports the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction over Asher. | Long-arm reach would be consistent with due process given tort-related acts. | Not enough prima facie evidence to justify jurisdiction; due process not satisfied. | Not reached/required to decide given failure under 600.705; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sifers v. Horen, 385 Mich 195 (1971) (interpretation of broad wording in long-arm statute)
- McPheron, Inc. v Koning, 336 NW2d 474 (Mich. App. 1983) (transaction-based long-arm analysis analogue to Oklahoma case)
- Williams v. Bowman Livestock Equip Co, 927 F.2d 1128 (CA 10 1991) (prima facie jurisdiction standard on affidavits)
- Mozdy v. Lopez, 494 NW2d 866 (1992) (three-part due process test for limited jurisdiction)
- Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp., 448 Mich 178 (1995) (de novo review of jurisdiction; due process assessment)
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (1994) (distinguishes inference from conjecture in proving facts)