In this dеclaratory action, plaintiffs appeal as of right the order of the cirсuit court granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. MCR 2.116(C)(4). We vacate and remand.
Davna Investments Limited, owner of аn apartment building in Grand Rapids, Michigan, entered into an agreement with defendant whereby defendant was permitted to maintain coin-operated laundry equipment in the lаundry areas of the apartment building. Paragraph twelve of the agreement prоvided that “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois with the courts of Cook County having sole and exclusive jurisdiction.” Plaintiffs purchased the building from Davna Investments and, soon thereafter, filed a declaratory action in the Kent Circuit Court, Michigan, to determine their rights visa-vis defendant’s rights with respect to the laundry areas of the building.
The circuit court ruled that, because the forum selection clause in the agreement рrovided that the courts of Cook County, Illinois, had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes pеrtaining to the contract, it lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ complaint. Implicit in the circuit court’s reasoning was its assumption that only the courts of Cook County had jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs were, in fact, subject to the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the court granted summary disposition in favor
*419
of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4). Plаintiffs now appeal as of right. Our review is de novo.
Steele v Dep’t of Corrections,
As stated in
Jones v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co,
In the instant case, we believe that the circuit court erred in ruling that the forum selection provision set forth in the agrеement dictated that the threshold question, that is, whether plaintiffs were bound by the agreement, be answered by an Illinois court. The present situation is analogous to disputes сoncerning whether a particular party is subject to an arbitration agreemеnt. As stated by our Supreme Court,
Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist No 6, Counties of Manistee, Lake & Mason v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass’n,
We see no reason why this approach is not equally applicable to contracts bestowing jurisdiction on a particular court. A contraсtual forum selection clause, though otherwise valid, may not be enforced agаinst one not bound by the contract. See St Clair Prosecutor, supra. Just as the courts have jurisdiction to determine the threshold issue whether a party is bound to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement, we believe the courts of the state “where the cause of action arose,” Jones, supra, p 397, have jurisdiction to determine the threshold issue whether a party is bound by a contrаct, and, accordingly, any forum selection and choice-of-law provision in thе contract.
Here, plaintiffs contended that they were not bound by the agreement of the previous owner of the property. Plaintiffs were not signatories to the contract, and they argued that because the contract in question constituted a license, in contrast to a lease, it was revoked upon conveyance of the underlying property. Thus, before concluding that the present action should hаve been brought in Illinois, the circuit court should first have determined the threshold question *421 whether plaintiffs were properly subject to the agreement. The court did not make this determination. Therefore, we vacate the order appealed and remand to allow the court to rule on this issue.
Vacated and remanded. Jurisdiction is not retained.