Opinion
369336
05-31-2024
ANNE MARIE GREENWALD v. PIONEER STATE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LC No. 23-013158-NF
Anica Letica Presiding Judge Noah P. Hood Adrienne N. Young Judges
ORDER
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), the trial court's December 21, 2023 order granting the motion to change venue is REVERSED, and the matter REMANDED for entry of an order denying the motion to change venue.
Defendant's motion to change venue explicitly relied on MCR 2.223. A change of venue is required under that rule only where venue does not lie in the county where suit was filed. MCR 2.223(A); Shiroka v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 276 Mich.App. 98, 102; 740 N.W.2d 316 (2007). Here, applying the plain language of MCL 600.1621, which controls the venue analysis because this is a breach-of-contract action, see Ferguson v Pioneer State Mut Ins Co, 273 Mich.App. 47, 48; 731 N.W.2d 94 (2006), venue is proper in Wayne County because defendant does business in that county. Indeed, the trial court held as much on the record at the motion hearing. Yet the trial court's written order reflects a holding that venue was improper in Wayne County, and that a change of venue was ordered pursuant to MCR 2.223 and MCL 600.1621. Such a conclusion is clearly erroneous where venue does, in fact, lie in Wayne County under MCL 600.1621. Shiroka, 276 Mich.App. at 102.
While not reflected in the written order entered by the trial court, the trial court's conclusion on the record was that a change of venue was appropriate, under MCR 2.222, as a matter of convenience. Given that courts speak through their written orders and not their oral pronouncements, In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich.App. 656, 678; 765 N.W.2d 44 (2009), it is debatable whether one could even understand the trial court as having decided that a change of venue is appropriate under MCR 2.222. But if that is the trial court's conclusion, it is an abuse of discretion. Chilingirian v City of Fraser, 182 Mich.App. 163, 165; 451 N.W.2d 541 (1989).
We first question whether the court could even reach the issue under MCR 2.222 where the motion filed by defendant relied only on MCR 2.223. See MCR 2.222(B) ("If the venue of the action is proper, the court may not change the venue on its own initiative, but may do so only on motion of a party"). But setting that aside, plaintiff's choice of venue is entitled to deference. Defendant must demonstrate inconvenience, "and a persuasive showing must be made." Chilingirian, 182 Mich.App. at 165. Generally, the relevant considerations are travel and the location of the parties, witnesses, and evidence. Dairyland Ins Co v Mews, ___Mich App ___, ___; ___NW3d___ (2023) (Docket Nos. 359855, 361345, 361348, 361351, and 361357); slip op at 12. Defendant in this case made no persuasive showing of inconvenience. Defendant did not identify the names or location of any witnesses or their proximity to Wayne County; has not demonstrated that any relevant evidence would be more conveniently accessed if venue is in Alcona County; and has not demonstrated that traveling distances warrant overriding plaintiff's choice of venue. The trial court thus abused its discretion by ordering a change of venue in this matter, to the extent the trial court's decision may be understood as having been made pursuant to MCR 2.222.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.