-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

ADRIENNE GRANT, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

July 23, 2015 

v No. 320665 

Oakland Circuit Court 

MICHAEL GRANT, AFXISI USA, and INK 

MARKETING, 

 Defendants, 

and 

ARMAND GRANT, 

LC No. 2013-137227-CZ 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and SAAD and RIORDAN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order that granted summary disposition to defendant 

Armand Grant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1). For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Plaintiff Adrienne Grant was married to Michael Grant, the son of eighty-year-old 

defendant Armand Grant, from 1994 to 2012. Though Adrienne and Michael originally lived in 

California, where Armand resides, they moved to Michigan in the mid 2000s. Because neither 

Adrienne nor Michael were employed or had significant financial resources, Armand purchased 

them a home in Oakland County, and gave Michael cash gifts throughout their marriage. 

Armand also provided partial funding for Adrienne and Michael’s failed business ventures, 

Afxisi USA, LLC (Afxisi), and Ink Marketing, LLC. These entities were Michigan corporations, 
-2- 

and Adrienne and Michael were the representative agents of the companies.1

 Armand did not 

have an interest in either organization. 

 In May 2013, Adrienne and Michael divorced. Adrienne claims, without offering any 

proofs or record of the divorce proceedings, that the judgment of divorce entitled her to “equity 

in the marital home, spousal and child support, and receivables due.” The total amount of money 

supposedly owed to Adrienne under this judgment is unspecified.

 Michael died sometime after the divorce, and Adrienne shifted the focus of her legal 

claims to her former father-in-law, Armand. She brought the instant lawsuit against Armand in 

2013 in the Oakland Circuit Court, and claimed that Armand functioned as Michael’s “alter 

ego,” because Michael purportedly hid his assets with Armand and the two corporations, Afxisi 

and Ink Marketing, to avoid the judgment of divorce.2 To substantiate this somewhat unusual 

legal theory, Adrienne served Armand with process on November 11, 2013. Strangely, she 

failed to serve either Afxisi or Ink Marketing with process, despite being a named agent of both 

companies, and the summons for both entities expired in February 2014. 

 Armand responded that Michigan was an inconvenient forum to litigate Adrienne’s case, 

and filed a motion to quash service of process and dismiss the case. Specifically, Armand argued 

that, under Adrienne’s legal theory and allegations: (1) all relevant events (the alleged 

concealment of Michael’s assets) would have transpired in California; (2) all relevant witnesses 

(Armand’s accountants, other business associates, and family members) and all relevant 

evidence (Armand’s financial records) were located in California; and (3) any judgment obtained 

by Adrienne would have to be enforced in California. Armand also emphasized that traveling to 

Michigan was difficult for him, owing to old age and poor health. And Armand further stated 

that Adrienne’s suit had no merit and was initiated to obtain an advantage in her federal action. 

 Adrienne averred that Michigan was an appropriate forum for her suit because: (1) she 

and the unserved corporate defendants were Michigan residents; (2) the alleged injury occurred 

in Michigan; (3) a Michigan judgment “would automatically be enforceable in California”; and 

(4) Armand could allegedly afford to travel to Michigan, but she could supposedly not afford to 

travel to California. 

After a hearing on February 5, 2014, the trial court issued a written opinion and order that 

granted Armand’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that Michigan was an inconvenient 

 

1

 The articles of organization for each company listed the registered office as Michael and 

Adrienne’s Michigan home. 

2

 Adrienne has also brought another suit against Armand in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan. In the action, she alleges Armand committed, among other things, 

(1) conversion, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of fiduciary duty in 

his management of the sale of Adrienne and Michael’s Oakland County home. She also alleges 

that Armand stole some of her jewelry from the residence. 
-3- 

forum.3

 And though it did not formally dismiss Adrienne’s claims as to the other defendants, the 

court noted that its dismissal of the action against Armand “disposes of the last pending claim 

and closes the case” because Adrienne had failed to serve the other defendants with process 

within the applicable time period. 

On appeal, Adrienne makes the same arguments regarding forum non conveniens that she 

did at the hearing, while Armand asks us to uphold the trial court’s dismissal of the case. 

Adrienne also asserts that her claims against Michael Grant, Afxisi, and Ink Marketing should be 

reinstated. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 A trial court’s decision “to grant or deny a motion to dismiss a case on the basis of the 

doctrine of forum non conveniens” is reviewed “for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the decision results in an outcome falling outside the principled range of 

outcomes.” Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598, 603; 719 NW2d 40 (2006). In 

other words, “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs only where the result is so palpably and grossly 

violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the 

exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or 

bias.” Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420, 438; 664 NW2d 231 (2003). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. INCONVENIENT FORUM 

“ ‘Forum non conveniens’ is defined as the ‘discretionary power of the court to decline 

jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action 

were brought and tried in another forum.’ ” MDOT v Am Motorists Ins Co, 305 Mich App 250, 

254; 852 NW2d 645 (2014), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed). The doctrine 

“presupposes the court has jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject-matter. [It] also 

 

3

 Specifically, the trial court held: 

The Court finds that summary disposition is appropriate. Analyzing the private 

interests of the litigants under the factors set forth in Cray v General Motors, 389 

Mich 382 (1972), the Court finds that Michigan is not a convenient forum and 

that a more appropriate forum exists. The only party served in this lawsuit is 

Defendant Armand Grant, who is a resident of California. . . . The Michigan 

LLC’s listed as Defendants have not been served and the evidence presented 

shows that they are not in good standing in Michigan and no longer conduct 

business. Even if Plaintiff were to serve all Defendants, the necessary witnesses 

who could testify regarding Defendant Armand Grant’s financial relationship with 

the other Defendants reside in California and all financial records related to 

Defendant are located in California. If a judgment were to be entered in 

Plaintiff’s favor, it would have to be enforced in California. 
-4- 

presupposes there is at least one forum other than the forum chosen where the plaintiff may bring 

his cause of action.” Hernandez v Ford Motor Co, 280 Mich App 545, 552; 760 NW2d 751 

(2008). “The application of forum non conveniens lies within the discretion of the trial judge,” 

and a plaintiff’s selection of a forum is “ordinarily accorded deference.” Radeljak, 475 Mich at 

604. 

 To determine whether a forum is convenient for litigation, a court looks to the following 

factors: 

 1. The private interest of the litigant. 

 a. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling and the 

cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; 

 b. Ease of access to sources of proof; 

 c. Distance from the situs of the accident or incident which gave rise to the 

litigation; 

 d. Enforcibility [sic] of any judgment obtained; 

 e. Possible harassment of either party; 

 f. Other practical problems which contribute to the ease, expense and 

expedition of the trial; 

 g. Possibility of viewing the premises. 

 2. Matters of public interest. 

 a. Administrative difficulties which may arise in an area which may not be 

present in the area of origin; 

 b. Consideration of the state law which must govern the case; 

 c. People who are concerned by the proceeding; 

 3. Reasonable promptness in raising the plea of forum non conveniens. 

[Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 395-396; 207 NW2d 393 (1973).] 

 Here, the trial court explicitly referenced the above factors when it held that Michigan 

was an inconvenient forum for plaintiff to litigate her claim, and the court did not abuse its 

discretion in so doing. Radeljak, 475 Mich at 603. In its opinion, the trial court noted that 

Armand Grant lived in California, and that all “necessary witnesses who could testify regarding 

Defendant Armand Grant’s financial relationship with [Michael, Afxisi, and Ink Marketing] 

reside in California.” It further observed that “all financial records related to [Armand] are 

located in California.” And the trial court correctly observed that “if a judgment were to be 

entered in [Adrienne’s] favor, it would have to be enforced in California.” 
-5- 

As such, the trial court considered factors 1(a) (availability of witnesses), 1(b) (ease of 

access to sources of proof), 1(f) (other practical problems which might contribute to ease, 

expense, and expedition of trial), and found that they indicated Michigan was not a convenient 

forum in which to litigate this case. Cray, 389 Mich at 395-396. This decision is not so 

“palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic”4 that it is “outside the range of principled 

outcomes.” Radeljak, 475 Mich at 603. In fact, there are number of other aspects of this case, 

which the trial court did not explicitly consider, that support the trial court’s conclusion that 

Michigan is not a convenient forum in which to bring this action, including: (1) Armand’s age 

and poor health, and the accordant stress he faces when traveling from California to Michigan; 

(2) the existence of Adrienne’s federal suit against Armand, which indicates that she might have 

brought this state suit to harass him; and (3) the promptness with which Armand alleged that 

Michigan was an inconvenient forum for this action. Cray, 389 Mich at 395-396. 

 Moreover, it is unclear whether Adrienne actually has a cause of action against Armand, 

because she has simply alleged that Armand, Afxisi, and Ink Marketing are “alter egos” of the 

deceased Michael, that are being used to conceal his assets from the divorce judgment. Were we 

nonetheless to assume that Adrienne has a valid cause of action, it is debatable whether a natural 

person can serve as an “alter ego” of another, or whether a corporation of which Adrienne is an 

integral part could serve as an “alter ego” for the concealment of Michael’s assets. See Lakeview 

Commons v Empower Yourself, 290 Mich App 503, 509-510; 802 NW2d 712 (2010). 

 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Adrienne’s suit 

against Armand. 

B. DISMISSAL OF CASE AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS 

 Unless a defendant consents to jurisdiction, service of process is necessary for the court to 

acquire personal jurisdiction over that defendant. Dogan v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 130 Mich 

App 313, 320; 343 NW2d 532 (1983). Service of a valid summons is a necessary part of service 

of process. Holliday v Townley, 189 Mich App 424, 425-426; 473 NW2d 733 (1991). A 

summons is valid only for a limited time, and expires 91 days after the date the complaint is filed. 

MCR 2.102(D). The summons may be extended upon a showing of due diligence, but the order 

extending the summons must be entered within the life of the summons. Moriarity v Shields, 260 

Mich App 566, 572-575; 678 NW2d 642 (2004). If a defendant is not served with process during 

the life of the summons, the action is deemed dismissed with respect to that defendant. MCR 

2.102(E)(1). 

 Here, as noted, Adrienne served Armand with process, but failed to do so as to the other 

three defendants: Michael Grant, Afxisi, and Ink Marketing. The original summonses expired on 

February 6, 2014, while the parties’ motions were pending. The trial court therefore properly 

concluded that Adrienne’s claims as to Michael, Afxisi, and Ink Marketing were dismissed as of 

that time. MCR 2.102(E)(1). 

 

4 Gates, 256 Mich App at 438. 
-6- 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan