*1 v GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION GROSS 12, 1993, January 134197. Submitted at Detroit. Docket Nos. 17, 1993, May 9:10 a.m. Decided at products liability brought in the Wilson Gross action Corporation against Motors and Phil’s 76 Circuit Court General Service, seeking damages injuries Gen- for sustained when his court, eral Motors truck overturned in Washtenaw The Borman, J., granted D. the defendants’ motions for a Susan change improperly finding laid after that Washtenaw of venue County for the action because was the both plaintiffs injuries plaintiff accident and the occurred there. The emergency application filed an for leave to While the pending, plaintiff was filed a motion in the Court, seeking on of the basis convenience parties change properly and witnesses a of venue laid to Court, Wayne County. The E. Washtenaw Circuit Donald Shel- ton, J., granting an order motion to issued change Wayne County, concluding Wayne County venue to was the most convenient forum for the Cynar Appeals, Cavanagh, and the court. The Court of (Shepherd, P.J., dissenting), emergency applica- JJ. denied the (Docket August 20, tion for leave to No. 130383). Court, Borman, J., The Susan D. re- accept Court, fused to the case from the Washtenaw Circuit authority that the Washtenaw Circuit Court lacked the Wayne County. to the case back The appealed by granted, appeals General Motors and the were consolidated. Appeals The held: 1. The Washtenaw Circuit Court did not have transfer the case back to for the convenience of and the witnesses after the improper Wayne County. had ruled that venue was The References 2d, 16, 32, 36, 37, seq. Am Jur Venue 48 et §§ statutory provisions change Construction and effect of of venue promotion of the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. 74 ALR2d 16. order of the Washtenaw Circuit Court must be reversed and rejecting the order of the the transfer from the Washtenaw Circuit Court must be affirmed. improper, 2. Where the venue of an action is the court must order a timely of venue if the defendant has amade motion. The court has no discretion to retain the action for the *2 parties, witnesses, court, convenience of the the and the may only county the action be transferred to a in which venue proper. is 3. Because the Circuit Court did not have the benefit Supreme precedent holding of proper that venue is part arises, merely where or all of a cause of action not at the injury, situs of the the case must be remanded to that court for original reconsideration of change the defendants’ motion for a light Supreme of venue in Court’s determination. part, part, Affirmed in reversed and remanded. Griffin, P.J., concurred with the reversal of the Washtenaw transferring Court order venue to the Court and the affirmance of the Circuit Court order transfer, refusing the but dissented from the decision to review original the transfer order from the Circuit Court to the Court, noting Washtenaw Circuit the limited leave to appeal granted by Appeals the Court of did not include that order. — 1. Venue Transfer of Action. change
A court must order a of venue if the venue of the action improper timely motion; is and the defendant makes a court has no discretion to retain the action for the convenience court, of and the transfer (MCR county proper the action to a in which venue is 27A.1651). 2.223[A][1],2.224; MCL — 2. Venue Transfer of Action.
A circuit court that has found that of an action is proper county in another and has transferred the action to that county may reject attempt by an the circuit court of that' county ground to transfer the action back on the that for the proper convenience of the and the witnesses venue is original county. Hardship. — — 3. Venue Transfer of Action county An action be transferred in which the moving party changed resides where venue is because of hard- (MCR 2.224). ship 2.222[A], or inconvenience op Opinion the Court op Injury. — 4. Venue Situs arises, part of action Venue is where all or of a cause merely injury. at the situs of an Peters, Goodman, Lister, P.C. Seikaly & Peters, Goodman, and Thomas Richard M. Darrel Kuhn, Thomas E. Stephens), W. Antone & P.C. (by Kuhn), R. and Bendure & Thomas Mark Ben- (by Snell), R. Amy dure plaintiff. Magnuson, P.C. Renee Reynolds, Beeby, (by Loridas), Vintzel Corporation. for General Motors Shepherd Griffin, P.J., and and Fitz- Before: gerald, JJ.
Fitzgerald, J. In docket number defen- Corporation appeals by dant General Motors from Washtenaw Circuit Donald granting plaintiff’s Shelton’s on the venue to basis In docket hardship and inconvenience. number *3 134197, granted from appeals by Susan Borman’s order refus- ing accept of venue to County returning the case to Washtenaw County. 1987, Gross, Wilson and his April plaintiff, departed Wayne County
two children their Min- Kentucky. General Motors truck en route to trip, utes into the their truck overturned in Wash- minutes from the County, only away tenaw County paralyzed border. Plaintiff was as result of the accident. 9, 1990, plaintiff initiated this February
On products action in the liability gm. against complaint Plaintiff’s was later add Phil’s 76 Service as a amended to defendant service, and alleged negligent inspection, for its repair of the truck. Both defendants filed motions for a change of venue 8, improperly laid. On June 1990, the Wayne the mo- tions in an order changing venue to Washtenaw As the basis for its ruling, the court stated that because both the accident inju- ries occurred County, Wayne County was an improper venue for the action. Plaintiffs emergency application to this Court for leave to appeal 20, the order August was denied on 1990, "for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review.”
Before this Court denied applica his emergency tion, plaintiff filed a motion in the Washtenaw Circuit Court seeking on the basis of the conve nience and witnesses a change of venue laid1 properly to Wayne County. August On 16, 1990, the Washtenaw Circuit Court issued an order granting plaintiffs to change to Wayne County. The court concluded Wayne County would be the most convenient fo rum and the court. gm
On September 1990, 6, filed an application leave to the Washtenaw Circuit Court order. Before a ruling was made by this Court on gm’s for leave to appeal, the Wayne case, refused to accept with the court sua sponte that the Washtenaw Cir- cuit Court lacked the authority case back to Wayne County. gm’s
This Court granted plaintiffs applica- tions for leave to appeal on December 1990. Phil’s 76 is not a party
The issue primary before us is whether Washtenaw Circuit Court had to trans- fer the case back to Wayne for the conve- County nience of the parties and witnesses after *4 Wayne Circuit Court ruled that venue im- was 1 apparently Plaintiffs motion was based on the prior ruling proper County. Court’s that venue was in Washtenaw
624 Wayne County.2 proper that We conclude in possess such did not Washtenaw authority. 2.223(A)(1) requires a a court to order MCR timely if a defendant motion of of venue on improper. MCL the action is the venue of no 27A.1651. The court has discre all, action for the convenience of tion to retain the and in which venue is ster, 2.224, county to a the action be transferred proper. Martin, Dean & Web (3d ed), Michigan Rule Court Rules Practice supplement, pp 29-30.3 argues, however, once was that Plaintiff County, the Washtenaw transferred to Washtenaw Circuit Court had 2.222(A) authority pursuant to MCR the action for the convenience to transfer parties However, MCR 2.224 of the and witnesses. provides ship changed hard that if venue is because of inconvenience, trans
or the action be moving county in which the ferred party County. resides, in this case is which Wayne already had Because the ruled that venue was improper Wayne County in and had no discretion to retain the action for the the convenience of the that we conclude Circuit Court did not have pur the action to poses hardship of convenience.4 If convenience and challenge improper were defenses a venue, MCR 2.223 would afford a court discretion to retain actions convenience and witnesses._ require Our resolution of this does not us to determine issue. finding whether of Shelton erred in met his burden proving hardship. inconvenience or 3Although likely greater will transfer result convenience to all, the transfer itself is made because the statute and the court rule
both demand that it be made. 4Consequently, Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion rejecting the transfer from Washtenaw *5 625 The Wayne Circuit Court’s initial order transfer ring venue to Washtenaw County is not one of the challenged orders in these appeals. However, al though we denied previously plaintiffs for leave to appeal order, the denial was without prejudice and was not an adjudication merits, posture of this case does not impede this Court’s ability review the order.5 Bolibrzuch, Dinius v See 618, 270 621; Mich 259 (1935). 156 NW To require plaintiff to raise the issue following a trial in the Washtenaw Circuit Court would effectively deny the opportu nity to have a resolution on the merits of whether original change of venue was proper. Effective appellate review of a venue can be from an from an interlocutory order because MCL precludes 27A.1645 appellate relief based solely upon improper venue. See Kohn v Co, Ford Motor 151 300; Mich App 390 (1986). NW2d 709 Co, Lorencz v Ford Motor 370, 377; 439 Mich (1992), NW2d 844 the Supreme Court rejected
this Court’s determination that venue is properly laid in the county that is the situs of the injuries and held that venue is part where arises, or all of a cause of action at the merely situs of an injury. Judge Borman did not have the benefit of the Lorencz decision when she ruled. Accordingly, we remand to the Wayne reconsideration of defendant’s for a of Lorencz. light of venue in Witt v CJ Barrymore’s, 195 Mich App 522; (1992). 491 NW2d 871
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and re- manded. We retain jurisdiction._ powers judg- "any This Court has broad remedial enter grant ment or order or further or different relief as the case 7.216(A)(7). require.” MCR Opinion Griffin, P.J.
Shepherd, J., concurred. dissenting in (concurring part Griffin, P.J. the issues part). in disposition I agree with I in this consolidated preserved raised and reversing the Washtenaw majority with the join transferring Court order Circuit affirming Circuit Court and refusing the transfer. Circuit Court order decision to revisit majority’s I dissent from the 8, 1990, the June sponte sua transferring venue to Washtenaw *6 applica- by majority, Court. As noted was denied this Court appeal by tion for leave to (Shepherd, P.J., dissenting). August appeals by plaintiff regard- were taken No further ing the 1990 order. case, party ap- neither has this consolidated the Wayne the 1990 transfer from
pealed Court. The Circuit Court to the Washtenaw Circuit our Court does limited leave not include the order. 7.216(A)(7) uti-
I that MCR should be disagree an issue that is not lized in this case to address Michigan’s provisions nonju- before us. are 600.1601; 27A.1601. Ac- risdictional. MCL MSA an improper venue does not affect other- cordingly, MCL judgment. wise valid $1,159,420, In re Forfeiture of 27A.1645, (1992). 134, 140-141; 486 Mich NW2d can receive a fair and conve- Because the trial the Washtenaw Circuit Court nient either Court, I prolong or the would venue limbo.