Case ID: mich-app_152/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GOLDEN v FAXON
    Docket No. 64742.
    Submitted October 20, 1983, at Detroit.
    Decided November 14, 1983.
    In October, 1981, plaintiff, Richard Golden, commenced a suit in the Wayne Circuit Court for contract rescission. Named as the defendant in the action was Jack Faxon, Seventh District State Senator. Defendant moved to quash service of process based upon his constitutional and statutory privilege from civil process during sessions of the Legislature. The trial court, Lucile A. Watts, J., entered an order denying defendant’s motion after finding that recognition of the privilege in this case would result in a denial of due process to plaintiff, since defendant is a necessary party and since the Legislature adjourned sine die in late December, 1981, thereby making defendant immune from civil process between the 1981 and 1982 legislative sessions. Defendant appeals, by leave granted, from that order. Held:
    
    1. The trial court committed clear error in this case. While consistent late December sine die adjournments of the Legislature may result in a denial of due process because of the inability to effect service of process on an essential litigant, the single late December adjournment did not cause an unreasonably long period of immunity in this case.
    2. Plaintiff has not shown that it will be impossible, within the constraints of Const 1963, art 4, § 11, to effect service of process on defendant and bring him before the court to answer the complaint.
    Reversed.
    Process — Constitutional Law — Legislature Immunity.
    A trial court erred in denying a motion to quash service of process on a defendant who is a state legislator on the ground recognition of the constitutional and statutory privilege from civil process during sessions of the Legislature would result in a denial of due process to the plaintiff where the plaintiff did not show that it will be impossible within the constraints of the constitution to effect service of process on the defendant and bring the defendant before the court to answer the complaint (Const 1963, art 4, § 11; MCL 600.1831[3]; MSA 27A.1831[3]).
    
      References
    Am Jur 2d, Process § 134.
    Am Jur 2d, States § 55.
    See the annotations in the ALR3d/4th Quick Index under Service of Process and Papers.
    
      
      Law Offices of Clifford J. DeVine (by Clifford J. DeVine and Clifford J. Dovitz), for plaintiff.
    
      Bromberg, Robinson, Shapero, Cohn & Burgoyne, P.C. (by Michael M. Jacob), and Weinbaum, Willis & Abbo, P.C. (by Kent B. Willis), of counsel, for defendant.
    Before: D. F. Walsh, P.J., and T. M. Burns and N. Lambros, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant, Jack Faxon, 7th District State Senator, appeals, by leave granted, from the denial of his motion to quash service of process.

Defendant’s motion to quash service of process, following plaintiff Richard Golden’s commencement of suit against him for contract rescission in October, 1981, was based on his constitutional and statutory privilege from civil process during sessions of the Legislature. Const 1963, art 4, § 11 and MCL 600.1831(3); MSA 27A.1831(3). The trial court found that recognition of the privilege in this case would result in a denial of due process to plaintiff, since defendant is a necessary party and since the Legislature adjourned sine die in late December, 1981, thereby making defendant immune from civil process between the 1981 and 1982 legislative sessions. See Bishop v Wayne Circuit Judge, 395 Mich 672, 677; 237 NW2d 465 (1976).

In our judgment, the trial court committed clear error in this case. The constitution and statute provide clearly and unambiguously for the legislators’ privilege from civil process during sessions of the Legislature. While consistent late December sine die adjournments of the Legislature may result in a denial of due process because of the inability to effect service of process on an essential litigant, we find that a single late December adjournment did not cause an unreasonably long period of immunity in this case. Bishop v Wayne Circuit Judge, supra, p 677. Plaintiff has not shown that it will be impossible, within the constraints of Const 1963, art 4, § 11, to effect service of process on defendant and to bring defendant before the court to answer his complaint.

Reversed. No costs, a public question. 
      
      Except as provided by law, senators and representatives shall be privileged from civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the legislature and for five days next before the commencement and after the termination thereof.
      The constitutional provision was amended by the people at the November 2, 1982, general election, effective December 18, 1982. The sole change effected by the amendment was the addition of the prefatory words "Except as provided by law.” There has as of yet been no legislative response to the amendment.
     
      
      Civil process shall not be served on any senator or representative during sessions of the legislature and for 15 days next before the commencement and after the end of each session.