BY LO OIL CO V DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BY LO OIL COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 22, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, MARK A.
MURRAY, REX PIERCE, and DAVID WAGG,
No. 230731
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 99-001800-CZ
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal by leave granted the circuit court order granting plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration and denying defendants’ motion for change of venue. The trial court originally
granted defendants’ motion for change of venue from the St. Clair Circuit Court to the Court of
Claims in plaintiff’s action alleging statutory and constitutional violations arising out of
defendants’ tax audit of plaintiff. We reverse and remand for entry of an order transferring venue
of this case back to the Court of Claims.
Defendants argue that their motion for change of venue on convenience grounds under
MCR 2.222 was improperly denied because the subject matter of this action arose in Ingham
County and a majority of the parties, witnesses, and counsel are in Ingham County. A change of
venue decision and a reconsideration decision are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hunter v
Doe, 61 Mich App 465, 467; 233 NW2d 39 (1975); Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 658659; 617 NW2d 368 (2000). The facts in the present case weigh in favor of defendants. Most
involved counsel are in Ingham County, only one of nine witnesses on plaintiff’s witness list is in
St. Clair County, and defendants’ records that are evidence of the audit are at their main offices
in Ingham County. Brown v Hillsdale Co Rd Comm, 126 Mich App 72, 79; 337 NW2d 318
(1983); Hickman v General Motors Corp, 177 Mich App 246, 251-252; 441 NW2d 430 (1989).
Furthermore, because defendants’ principal office is in Ingham County and part of this
cause of action arose there, venue is proper in Ingham County. Lorencz v Ford Motor Co, 439
Mich 370, 375; 483 NW2d 844 (1992). MCL 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615 requires that suits
against a government agency be instituted in the county of the agency’s main office if the claim
arose there. In addition, MCL 205.22(1); MSA 7.657(22)(1) allows taxpayers to appeal
decisions to the Court of Claims. Therefore, as a result of the facts and relevant law, venue in
-1-
Ingham County was convenient and proper for all concerned under MCR 2.222, and the lower
court’s original grant of defendants’ motion was not in error. Consequently, it was an abuse of
discretion for the trial court to grant plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and subsequently deny
defendants’ motion for change of venue because the trial court committed no palpable error in its
original decision granting the motion. Hunter, supra at 467; Kokx, supra at 658-659.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order transferring venue to the Court of Claims.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
