-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

INDERPREET SANDHU,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 30, 2015

v No. 320573
Oakland Circuit Court JAIDEEP SANDHU, LC No. 2013-814681-DO

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: W ILDER , P.J., and S HAPIRO and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.
Plaintiff Inderpreet Sandhu appeals as of right an order grant ing defendant Jaideep Sandhu’s motion to dismiss her complaint for annulment based up on lack of jurisdiction. We
affirm. 1

The parties married in India on April 16, 2010. They moved to the United States in April 2012 and resided in Michigan until Jaideep moved out of their h ome and left the state on or about April 2, 2013. Jaideep filed a complaint for divorce in Mahoning County, Ohio on November 7, 2013, alleging extreme cruelty. Inderpreet then fi led her complaint for annulment in Oakland County, Michigan on November 22, 2013, alleging frau d. The trial court in Michigan granted Jaideep’s motion to dismiss Inderpreet’s annul ment complaint and deferred jurisdiction to Ohio because the complaint for divorce was file d in Ohio before the complaint for annulment was filed in Michigan. Inderpreet now appeals the di smissal of her annulment complaint.

Inderpreet first argues that the relief sought in her complain t for annulment is different from the relief sought in the complaint for divorce filed in Oh io. The issue of jurisdiction is a question of law to be r eviewed de novo on appeal. Michigan ’ s Adventure

, Inc v Dalton Twp , 287 Mich App 151, 153; 782 NW2d 806 (2010).

1 Because the position of the parties is switched in the related Ohio action, this opinion refers to the parties as Inderpreet (the plaintiff here and the defendant in Ohio) and Jaideep (the defendant here and the plaintiff in Ohio).-2- Although the relief afforded by an annulment differs from that of a divorce, both actions dissolve a marriage. It is undisputed that Jaideep filed his d ivorce action in Ohio before Inderpreet filed her annulment action in Michigan, although Ind erpreet claims she was not properly served with the divorce action. Inderpreet also conte nds that an annulment does not require the same jurisdiction re straints as a divorce. However , had Inderpreet wanted to pursue the relief afforded by an annulment, she had the opportunity to attempt to do so in Ohio after Ohio had assumed jurisdiction of the divorce action. Apparentl y she did not do so. 2

Inderpreet next argues that the court violated her due process rights by not giving her an opportunity to be heard. This C ourt reviews de novo issues of due process. Elba Twp v Gratiot

Co Drain Comm ’ r , 493 Mich 265, 277, 831 NW2d 204 (2013).

Inderpreet’s due process rights were not violated. Not only d id Inderpreet have an opportunity to be heard before the trial court in Michigan, but she and her counsel also appeared and contested jurisdiction in O hio. At the hearing on Jaideep’ s motion to dismiss Inderpreet’s annulment action, the trial court in Michigan stated that, base d upon the court’s conversation with an Ohio magistrate, the court determined that Ohio had jur isdiction because Jaideep had filed his divorce action in Ohio before Inderpreet had filed he r annulment action in Michigan. However, the trial court further stated, “I'll hear you if you think I'm wrong, you think—that two Courts can have jurisdiction over the same matter.” Inderpreet ’s counsel was then given an opportunity to present Inderpreet’s position. Further, althoug h the trial court admitted that it had not read Inderpreet’s response to the motion to dismiss the ann ulment complaint at the time of the hearing, the court indicated that it would read the respons e and reverse itself sua sponte if needed. The trial court did not decide to reverse itself, howe ver based upon the record before this Court, it is clear that Inderpreet had an opportunity to b e heard and thus her due process rights were not violated.

Inderpreet also had the opportunity to be heard before the Ohi o court. Inderpreet was permitted to argue the issues of the different relief sought th rough annulment and divorce, Jaideep’s Ohio residency, and jurisdiction. Although given the opportunity to offer evidence or present witnesses in Ohio, Inderpreet did not do so. She also did not dispute the accuracy of the exhibits provided by Jaideep.

Accordingly, this Court holds that Inderpreet was not denied t he right to be heard and was not denied due process.

Inderpreet further argues that o nly the Michigan court had jur isdiction over her complaint
for annulment and that the Ohio co urt lacked jurisdiction over the divorce action because Jaideep failed to establish the requisite Ohio residency. The issue of jurisdiction is a question of law to be reviewed de novo on appeal. Michigan ’ s Adventure , 287 Mich App at 153. Pursuant to the

2 To the best of this court’s knowledge the appellant still main tains the right to pursue the relief
of an annulment in Ohio.-3- Full Faith and Credit Clause, US Const, Art IV, § 1, a judgment entered in another state is “presumptively valid and subject to recognition in Michigan[.]” Hare v Starr Commonwealth Corp

, 291 Mich App 206, 216; 813 NW2d 752 (2011). The decision wheth er a court should defer to an alternative, foreign f orum is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id . at 214-215.

Inderpreet argues that Ohio lack ed jurisdiction over this matt er because she never resided in Ohio, she and Jaideep never resided in Ohio as a married cou ple, and it is disputed whether Jaideep ever resided in Ohio. The issue of jurisdiction was ad dressed by both the Michigan trial court and by the Ohio court. The Michigan court stated:

It [the Ohio Court] has jurisdiction over the matter, and juri sdiction in the divorce case is taken once somebody swears under oath that they have—we have cases where a couple lives their e ntire married life in one sta te and then somebody moves here, and as long as they meet the jurisdictional require ments, they can file
for divorce here.

* * *

The marriage is going to end at the end of these proceedings, either in the form of an annulment, as if it never was, or in the form of a divorce. I've had—I had a lengthy discussion with the Ohio Judge, he is absolute[ly ] confident [that Ohio has jurisdiction after taki ng testimony that Jaideep has e stablished his residency in Ohio] and he held a f ull hearing that your client participated in, yes?

And in the Ohio divorce judgment, the Ohio court found that Jai deep met the residency requirements to establish jurisdiction for the Ohio court to gr ant him a divorce. The Ohio court relied, among other things, upon Jaideep’s testimony and the te stimony of a corroborating neighbor in Ohio. Nothing presented by Inderpreet overcomes th e evidence that Jaideep provided regarding his residency in Ohio or overcomes the presu mption that the Ohio divorce judgment is valid. The law in Ohio states: “[t]he plaintiff in actions for divorce and annulment
shall have been a resident of the state at least six months imm ediately before filing the complaint.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.03 (West). The Ohio la w never sets a time requirement during which both parties must be living as a marri ed couple inside the jurisdiction, nor is there a requirement tha t the non-filing party has to hav e lived in the jurisdiction at all.

Although Inderpreet attested that she and her family members w ere told that Jaideep had been residing in New York, she offered no other evidence in sup port of this assertion. Jaideep provided his Ohio driver’s license and confirmation from the Un ited States Postal Service of his change of address to Ohio as of April 8, 2013. Based upon all of the forgoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deferring jurisdiction to Ohio when Jaideep had established the requisite residency in Ohio a nd filed his action first.

Inderpreet also asserts that she was never properly served wit h the summons and complaint for divorce and Jaideep never filed a proof of servic e in the Ohio action. In the-4- divorce judgment the Ohio cour t stated: “On December 26, 2013, Defendant/Inderpreet Bhullar was served with the Summons and Complaint by Regular U.S. Mail” after the attempt to serve by Certified Mail was returned, h aving been marked ‘unclaimed.’ ” 3 Additionally, although she may not have been properly served, Inderpreet, by her own admis sion, was aware of the Ohio
action before she filed her annul ment action and also participa ted in the Ohio action. 4

Finally, Inderpreet argues that the court improperly dismissed her annulment action without stating any reason or citing any authority. “A trial c ourt's decision to dismiss an action
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Donkers v Kovach , 277 Mich App 366, 368; 745 NW2d 154 (2007). As discussed above, Jaideep’s continuous residency in Ohio for more than six months was established and thus jurisdiction was found to exist in Ohio. Ohio had the earlier filed action and thus jurisdiction. Despite her assertion to t he contrary, Inde rpreet had the opportunity to be heard in both the Michigan and Ohio courts. Additionally, the Michigan court stated in its order that it granted Jaideep’s motion to dismiss “for the reasons stated on the record.” On the record, the court stated it was deferring juri sdiction to Ohio because the divorce action was filed first in Ohio and the Ohio magistrate found th at Jaideep had established the requisite residency in Ohio. Acco rdingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Inderpreet’s annulment action.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

3 The Ohio Court also noted that “[i]t is unclear whether servic e has been perfected against Plaintiff/Jaideep Sandhu since th e Certificate of Service refer ences only that the Summons and Complaint was ‘Posted on the front door of the house.’”

4 The lack of clarity on whether Inderpreet was properly served may warrant further review in the appropriat e jurisdiction.