In Re Saah Benjamin Harris ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re HARRIS.
JUDITH JACKSON, UNPUBLISHED
March 23, 2023
Petitioner-Appellee,
v No. 362232
Kent Probate Court
SAAH BENJAMIN HARRIS, LC No. 22-930734-MI
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and BOONSTRA and REDFORD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Saah Harris appeals as of right the original and amended order after a hearing
on a petition for involuntary mental health treatment confining him to hospital treatment. We
affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
While staying with his mother, Judith Jackson, respondent stopped taking his medication,
started hearing voices, became paranoid, and threatened suicide. Respondent’s mother tried to
take him to a local psychiatric hospital but he jumped out of the moving car. After an evaluation
in a local emergency room where a doctor evaluated respondent and found him mentally ill
requiring hospitalization and treatment, his mother petitioned for court ordered hospitalization.
After a hearing, the probate court ordered an initial hospitalization for 60 days.
II. ANALYSIS
Respondent argues that the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he
did not consent to personal jurisdiction and lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state to
permit the court to order his hospitalization. We disagree.
Whether a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law that we
review de novo. WH Froh, Inc v Domanski, 252 Mich App 220, 226; 651 NW2d 470 (2002).
-1-
Issues of statutory construction, application, and interpretation are reviewed de novo. Johnson v
Johnson, 329 Mich App 110, 118; 940 NW2d 807 (2019).
To preserve a challenge to the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, the issue must
be raised in a party’s first responsive pleading or by motion. MCR 2.116(D)(1). Respondent did
not preserve this issue for appellate review. “Appellate courts may grant relief for unpreserved
errors if the proponent of the error can satisfy the ‘plain error’ standard . . . .” People v Cain, 498
Mich 108, 116; 869 NW2d 829 (2015). To obtain relief, respondent must establish “that (1) an
error occurred, (2) the error was ‘plain’—i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the error affected substantial
rights—i.e., the outcome of the lower court proceedings was affected.” Id., citing People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). If these three elements are satisfied, we must
exercise discretion in deciding whether to reverse because relief is warranted only if the plain,
forfeited error resulted in a miscarriage of justice or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Cain, 498 Mich at 116.
Under the Michigan Mental Health Code, a probate court “may order involuntary treatment
for an individual who is an adult.” MCL 330.1281a. The Mental Health Code does not have a
specific personal jurisdiction provision. Instead, jurisdiction is determined under Michigan’s
general statutes. “Before a court may obligate a party to comply with its orders, the court must
have in personam jurisdiction over the party.” Oberlies v Searchmont Resort, Inc, 246 Mich App
424, 427; 633 NW2d 408 (2001). A court may establish jurisdiction over a person through general
or limited personal jurisdiction. Id. A court may exercise general personal jurisdiction “when a
defendant’s contacts with the forum state are of such nature and quality as to enable a court to
adjudicate an action against the defendant, even when the claim at issue does not arise out of the
contacts with the forum.” Id. General personal jurisdiction may be exercised over nonresidents
under MCL 600.701 which provides:
The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual
and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of
record of this state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the individual or
his representative and to enable such courts to render personal judgments against
the individual or representative.
(1) Presence in the state at the time when process is served.
(2) Domicile in the state at the time when process is served.
(3) Consent, to the extent authorized by the consent and subject to the
limitations provided in section 745.
Under MCL 600.701, respondent, even as a nonresident, did not need to consent to personal
jurisdiction because he was served with process when present in the state of Michigan. See
Haefner v Bayman, 165 Mich App 437, 441; 419 NW2d 29 (1988) (holding that a probate court
had jurisdiction over a nonresident when served with process while in Michigan on business).
Respondent ignores that general personal jurisdiction does not require both physical presence and
consent.
-2-
Respondent argues without citation to any authority that the probate court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him merely because he was served the petition while involuntarily hospitalized.
Further, respondent cites no authority that an individual involuntarily hospitalized is not subject to
MCL 600.701. Our Supreme Court has long held that there is no distinction between obtaining
jurisdiction over a mentally ill respondent compared to a nonmentally ill respondent. See Love v
Merrill, 165 Mich 503, 507; 130 NW 1123 (1911).
Respondent argues that he lacked a sufficient relationship with the state to trigger
jurisdiction under Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705. This argument is irrelevant
because the probate court had general personal jurisdiction over respondent under MCL 600.701.
Oberlies, 246 Mich App at 427.
In his reply brief, respondent raises for the first time the issue whether his counsel provided
ineffective assistance at the petition hearing by failing to object to personal jurisdiction. This issue
is not properly before this Court because respondent only raised this issue in his reply brief. Reply
briefs may contain only rebuttal argument, and raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is
not sufficient to properly present an issue for appeal. MCR 7.212(G); Bronson Methodist Hosp v
Mich Assigned Claims Facility, 298 Mich App 192, 199; 826 NW2d 197 (2012).
Respondent has failed to establish that the probate court erred by exercising personal
jurisdiction over him. The probate court also did not abuse its discretion by ruling that respondent
was a person who required mental health treatment. Clear and convincing evidence established
that respondent suffers from a mental illness with impaired judgment and acted in a manner that,
as a result of that mental illness, can be reasonably expected that in the near future he would
intentionally or unintentionally cause serious injury to himself or others, and fails to understand
his need for treatment. MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c). Accordingly, the probate court properly
ordered respondent to receive involuntary mental health treatment.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
/s/ James Robert Redford
-3-