Appeals Court Clarified Jurisdictional Limits in Kent and Ottawa County Child Custody Case
Opinion Published: December 30, 2024
Boonstra, Murray, Cameron
Docket Nos. 370949 & 371184
Ottawa County Circuit Court
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision in part, holding that the Kent County Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction over the child custody issues pursuant to MCR 3.205(A), and reversed the Trial Court’s decision in part, holding that the Ottawa County Circuit Court could not deny a motion to quash due to continuing jurisdiction without considering alternative arguments.
Key Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant married in 2004 and have seven children. Plaintiff filed for separate maintenance and custody in 2018. The Ottawa County Circuit Court entered a judgment of separate maintenance that decided custody, parenting time, and child support. In one of many disputes faced by the parties, Plaintiff accused Defendant of hiding marital funds in his father’s account and attempting to obtain evidence by subpoenaing Defendant’s father’s bank records. Defendant then filed for divorce in the Kent County Circuit Court in April of 2024, requesting that the Kent court take jurisdiction over the parties’ child custody issues. Plaintiff motioned the Kent court to dismiss or transfer the child custody issues to the Ottawa court, arguing that the Ottawa court had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction, and further claiming that Defendant was engaged in forum shopping. The Kent court denied Plaintiff’s motion and retained jurisdiction over the divorce case and the child custody issues.
Defendant’s father motioned the Ottawa court to quash the subpoena, stating that it no longer had jurisdiction due to the Kent court receiving jurisdiction, or to issue a protective order on the bank records under MCR 2.302(C). The Ottawa court denied the motion and determined that it had prior continuing jurisdiction over child custody, parenting time, and child support due to the order of separate maintenance and that the Kent court had jurisdiction over the divorce and any remaining property division issues only.
Key Appellate Rulings:
The Kent County divorce case did not arise under separate jurisdictional grounds from the child custody issues in the Ottawa County separate maintenance case, so Kent County does not have jurisdiction over the child custody issues under MCR 3.205(A).
Circuit courts are Michigan’s courts of general jurisdiction and have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies, except when exclusive jurisdiction is given to another court. Winkler v Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc, 500 Mich 327, 334; 901 NW2d 566 (2017), quoting MCL 600.605. “Circuit courts have the statutory authority to resolve a wide range of disputes during an action for divorce or separate maintenance.” In addition, circuit courts have continuing jurisdiction to revise and alter a judgment regarding the care, custody, maintenance, and support of children. Therefore, the Ottawa Court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the separate maintenance action under MCL 552.7(1) and the Kent Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the divorce under MCL 552.6(1). Both courts also had jurisdiction to resolve any custody disputes involving the children and to amend or modify any judgments.
MCR 3.205(A) governs the Kent Court’s jurisdictional authority to address child custody issues, stating “if an order or judgment has provided or continuing jurisdiction of a minor and proceedings are commenced in another Michigan court having separate jurisdictional grounds for an action affecting that minor, a waiver or transfer of jurisdiction is not required for the full and valid exercise of jurisdiction by the subsequent court.” (Emphasis added). Because the divorce and separate maintenance actions arose from the same jurisdictional ground, the Kent Court does not have the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the child custody issues, as it is the subsequent court. Defendant’s relief sought in the Kent Court was available in the Ottawa Court’s separate maintenance action, so MCR 3.204(A) required Defendant to raise his new child custody action in the Ottawa Court through its continuing jurisdiction.
A court in a subsequent divorce action does not have to decide matters of child custody if the matters had previously been decided through a separate maintenance action.
In Engemann v Engemann, 53 Mich App 588, 594; 219 NW2d 777 (1974), the Court of Appeals held that there is such a substantial difference between a divorce and an action for separate maintenance such that res judicata does not apply, meaning that a court in a subsequent divorce case must decide matters of child custody again. However, in this case, the Court of Appeals overruled the conclusion from Engemann, stating that it “is contrary to MCR 3.205(A), which limits the role of the subsequent court in proceedings affecting minors.” Further, the Court of Appeals held that where two courts have the same jurisdictional bases, “the subsequent court’s jurisdictional authority is circumscribed, unless there is a waiver or transfer of jurisdiction of child custody issues.”
A court must not deny a motion to quash due to continuing jurisdiction without considering alternative arguments, such as the grounds for the motion to quash and the request for a protective order.
Under MCR 2.305(A)(4)(a), “a person subject to a subpoena may move to quash or modify the subpoena on the grounds that the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive,” and under MCR 2.302(C), a person subject to a subpoena may seek a protective order. Defendant’s father moved to quash the subpoena of his bank records for lack of jurisdiction and because he thought the request was overly broad, irrelevant and excessive. He also asked for a protective order. However, the Ottawa Court did not offer any explanation for denying his motion except that it had continuing jurisdiction. Thus, the Ottawa Court failed to address Defendant’s father’s grounds for quashing the motion and failed to address the request for a protective order. The Court of Appeals held that this sole basis for the decision is insufficient, and “the Ottawa court’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes because it failed to consider these alternative arguments.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Ottawa Court’s finding that it had jurisdiction and thus the motion to quash was not valid in that regard, but reversed the decision to deny the motion because it failed to consider his alternative grounds for relief.
