BARRY F DEVINE V DESIGN & BUILD INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DESIGN & BUILD, INC., OF LANSING,
UNPUBLISHED
April 30, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 224383
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 98-088790-CK
BARRY F. DEVINE and KAREN J. DEVINE,
Defendant-Appellants,
BARRY F. DEVINE and KAREN J. DEVINE,
Plaintiff-Appellants,
v
Nos. 224384; 224447
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 99-090125-CK
DESIGN & BUILD, INC. OF LANSING,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
PHILLIP D. CROCKETT and SANDRA J.
CROCKETT,
Defendants.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Bandstra and Kelly, JJ.
Kelly, J. (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent from the majority only as it relates to the trial court’s jurisdiction
over defendant Karen DeVine.
I do not believe that Karen DeVine was properly served vis-à-vis attorney Woods’
acknowledgement of service after Barry DeVine authorized attorney Woods to accept service for
both himself and his wife. Certainly, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Karen
DeVine, as a legal entity separate and apart from her husband, ever authorized attorney Woods to
accept service on her behalf. Even acknowledging that Barry DeVine showed his wife the
complaint and recognizing that she acquired actual knowledge of the proceedings instituted
against her by D & B, that alone still does not provide the requisite personal service sufficient for
-1-
the court to acquire proper jurisdiction. See Reinecke v Sheehy, 47 Mich App 250, 254-255; 209
NW2d 460 (1973) (finding that no service of process on the wife was affected absent an
appearance entered by a defense attorney specifically on the wife’s behalf, even after the wife
observed someone personally serve her husband with the complaint, her husband showed her the
complaint and she read it the very same day.)
Because the record does not indicate that Karen DeVine, acting separately and
independently from her husband, ever communicated to attorney Woods her authorization to
accept service of the complaint on her own behalf, I would conclude that no service was made on
Karen DeVine personally. As a result, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction. Consequently,
I would find that the default judgment entered as against Karen DeVine is void. Reinecke, supra
at 255.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
