Opinion ID: 1984561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mcr 2.223(a)(2)

Text: We also conclude that enforcement of contractual provisions establishing venue for potential causes of action that may arise after the contract is executed conflict with our court rules. Under MCR 2.223(A)(1), a trial court is required to order a change of venue on timely motion of a defendant, if an action was brought where venue was improper. An objection to venue is waived if a party fails to raise it in a timely manner. MCR 2.221(C). [10] Finally, under MCR 2.223(A)(2): If the venue of a civil action is improper, the court ... may order a change of venue on its own initiative with notice to the parties and opportunity for them to be heard on the venue question. Trial courts' authority to order a change of venue on their own initiative would be abrogated if courts were required to enforce contractual provisions establishing venue. Therefore, we agree with the Court of Appeals that enforcement of such agreements would conflict with the express language of MCR 2.223(A)(2). Although this Court has acknowledged that a goal of venue rules relates to the convenience of litigants, [11] its primary goal is to minimize the costs of litigation not only by reducing the burdens on the parties, but also by considering the strains on the judicial system as a whole. [ Gross v. General Motors Corp., 448 Mich. 147, 155, 528 N.W.2d 707 (1995).] We conclude that such agreements would have a dramatic and negative effect on the judicial system as a whole by overburdening individual jurisdictions favored by the drafters of such agreements. [12] As a result, we conclude that such agreements fail to further the primary goal of minimizing strains on the judicial system as a whole.