If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

In re HARRIS.

JUDITH JACKSON,

Petitioner-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 23, 2023

v No. 362232

Kent Probate Court

SAAH BENJAMIN HARRIS, LC No. 22-930734-MI

Respondent-Appellant.

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and BOONSTRA and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Saah Harris appeals as of right the original and amended order after a hearing 

on a petition for involuntary mental health treatment confining him to hospital treatment. We 

affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

While staying with his mother, Judith Jackson, respondent stopped taking his medication, 

started hearing voices, became paranoid, and threatened suicide. Respondent’s mother tried to 

take him to a local psychiatric hospital but he jumped out of the moving car. After an evaluation 

in a local emergency room where a doctor evaluated respondent and found him mentally ill 

requiring hospitalization and treatment, his mother petitioned for court ordered hospitalization. 

After a hearing, the probate court ordered an initial hospitalization for 60 days.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he 

did not consent to personal jurisdiction and lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state to 

permit the court to order his hospitalization. We disagree.

Whether a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law that we

review de novo. WH Froh, Inc v Domanski, 252 Mich App 220, 226; 651 NW2d 470 (2002). 
-2-

Issues of statutory construction, application, and interpretation are reviewed de novo. Johnson v 

Johnson, 329 Mich App 110, 118; 940 NW2d 807 (2019).

To preserve a challenge to the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, the issue must 

be raised in a party’s first responsive pleading or by motion. MCR 2.116(D)(1). Respondent did 

not preserve this issue for appellate review. “Appellate courts may grant relief for unpreserved 

errors if the proponent of the error can satisfy the ‘plain error’ standard . . . .” People v Cain, 498 

Mich 108, 116; 869 NW2d 829 (2015). To obtain relief, respondent must establish “that (1) an 

error occurred, (2) the error was ‘plain’—i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the error affected substantial 

rights—i.e., the outcome of the lower court proceedings was affected.” Id., citing People v 

Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). If these three elements are satisfied, we must 

exercise discretion in deciding whether to reverse because relief is warranted only if the plain, 

forfeited error resulted in a miscarriage of justice or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or 

public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Cain, 498 Mich at 116.

Under the Michigan Mental Health Code, a probate court “may order involuntary treatment 

for an individual who is an adult.” MCL 330.1281a. The Mental Health Code does not have a 

specific personal jurisdiction provision. Instead, jurisdiction is determined under Michigan’s 

general statutes. “Before a court may obligate a party to comply with its orders, the court must 

have in personam jurisdiction over the party.” Oberlies v Searchmont Resort, Inc, 246 Mich App 

424, 427; 633 NW2d 408 (2001). A court may establish jurisdiction over a person through general 

or limited personal jurisdiction. Id. A court may exercise general personal jurisdiction “when a 

defendant’s contacts with the forum state are of such nature and quality as to enable a court to 

adjudicate an action against the defendant, even when the claim at issue does not arise out of the 

contacts with the forum.” Id. General personal jurisdiction may be exercised over nonresidents

under MCL 600.701 which provides:

The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual 

and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of 

record of this state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the individual or 

his representative and to enable such courts to render personal judgments against 

the individual or representative.

(1) Presence in the state at the time when process is served.

(2) Domicile in the state at the time when process is served.

(3) Consent, to the extent authorized by the consent and subject to the

limitations provided in section 745.

Under MCL 600.701, respondent, even as a nonresident, did not need to consent to personal 

jurisdiction because he was served with process when present in the state of Michigan. See 

Haefner v Bayman, 165 Mich App 437, 441; 419 NW2d 29 (1988) (holding that a probate court 

had jurisdiction over a nonresident when served with process while in Michigan on business). 

Respondent ignores that general personal jurisdiction does not require both physical presence and 

consent.
-3-

Respondent argues without citation to any authority that the probate court lacked personal 

jurisdiction over him merely because he was served the petition while involuntarily hospitalized. 

Further, respondent cites no authority that an individual involuntarily hospitalized is not subject to 

MCL 600.701. Our Supreme Court has long held that there is no distinction between obtaining 

jurisdiction over a mentally ill respondent compared to a nonmentally ill respondent. See Love v 

Merrill, 165 Mich 503, 507; 130 NW 1123 (1911).

Respondent argues that he lacked a sufficient relationship with the state to trigger 

jurisdiction under Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705. This argument is irrelevant 

because the probate court had general personal jurisdiction over respondent under MCL 600.701. 

Oberlies, 246 Mich App at 427.

In his reply brief, respondent raises for the first time the issue whether his counsel provided

ineffective assistance at the petition hearing by failing to object to personal jurisdiction. This issue 

is not properly before this Court because respondent only raised this issue in his reply brief. Reply 

briefs may contain only rebuttal argument, and raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is 

not sufficient to properly present an issue for appeal. MCR 7.212(G); Bronson Methodist Hosp v 

Mich Assigned Claims Facility, 298 Mich App 192, 199; 826 NW2d 197 (2012).

Respondent has failed to establish that the probate court erred by exercising personal 

jurisdiction over him. The probate court also did not abuse its discretion by ruling that respondent 

was a person who required mental health treatment. Clear and convincing evidence established 

that respondent suffers from a mental illness with impaired judgment and acted in a manner that, 

as a result of that mental illness, can be reasonably expected that in the near future he would 

intentionally or unintentionally cause serious injury to himself or others, and fails to understand 

his need for treatment. MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c). Accordingly, the probate court properly 

ordered respondent to receive involuntary mental health treatment.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ James Robert Redford