Opinion ID: 1984561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Michigan Precedent

Text: Like the Court of Appeals, we acknowledge that the few cases that touch on this issue at all suggest that, where there is an existing cause of action, parties may agree to venue. 226 Mich.App. at 401-402, 573 N.W.2d 641 (citations omitted). Addressing issues of venue and jurisdiction in Garavaglia, this Court explained: [P]rior to the institution of the suit, the parties, in conference, agreed that, for the convenience of both the department and the taxpayer, the suit should be instituted in Ingham county and that neither party would raise any question as to the jurisdiction of the court. [ Garavaglia v. Dep't of Revenue, 338 Mich. 467, 470, 61 N.W.2d 612 (1953).] [13] Likewise, in Grand Trunk, the plaintiff signed an agreement in exchange for $50 after he suffered his injury. The agreement provided: If my said claim cannot be settled to my satisfaction and should I wish to start suit against said Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company to recover damages for my said injuries, that any such suit shall be commenced within the county or district where I resided at the time my injuries were sustained or in the county or district where my injuries were sustained and not elsewhere. [ Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. Boyd, 321 Mich. 693, 695, 33 N.W.2d 120 (1948).] Emphasizing that parties are entitled to waive venue, this Court held the agreement binding and enforceable. Id., at 700, 33 N.W.2d 120. [14] Consistent with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, we agree that these cases are distinguishable because they were decided before the Revised Judicature Act. They failed to address whether the venue agreements were proper under existing venue statutes, and failed to expressly hold that such provisions were enforceable. 226 Mich.App. at 401-402, 407-408, 573 N.W.2d 641. In addition, each of the cases involved a contractual agreement executed after the cause of action arose. Id., at 401, 573 N.W.2d 641. Each addressed an existing action and, therefore, merely constituted a waiver regarding choice of venue. Therefore, the cases are distinguishable and fail to support the conclusion that the contractual provision under consideration is enforceable.