Divorce; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(6); Applicability even when the other action is in a foreign court; “Same claim”

Rejecting plaintiff-wife’s argument that the divorce action filed by defendant-husband in India did not involve the “same claim” as the divorce action she filed here, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(6). The trial court correctly reasoned that both actions “involve the same parties and the same claim, i.e., a request for dissolution of the marriage.” Plaintiff argued that they did not involve the same claim “because the two jurisdictions grant divorces on entirely different bases. While Michigan has a no-fault divorce law, the Hindu Marriage Act requires proof of fault to obtain a divorce.” Thus, she asserted that the two courts “will rely on different operative facts in adjudicating the parties’ divorce. However, while Michigan spouses are not required to prove fault to obtain divorce, fault may be relevant to the divorce proceedings.” The court further noted that “MCR 2.116(C)(6) does not turn on whether the underlying relevant facts are the same in both actions, but whether the actions involve the same parties and the same claim.” Plaintiff further contended that the two cases were not the same claim because she sought division of the marital property, while defendant’s petition in the India action did not. But while it was “possible that the India court will not resolve issues of marital property, this does not change the fact that both actions involve the same underlying claim.” The court rejected her contention “that the possibility that the India case will not resolve those matters entitles her to proceed in a parallel Michigan case or that awaiting the India court’s judgment constitutes a substantial injustice. Plaintiff retains the right to oppose recognition and enforcement of the India divorce decree.” But whether that “decree should be recognized and enforced in Michigan can only be determined after it has been issued.” The court’s decision was without prejudice to her “bringing an action to resolve any property disputes not resolved by the India divorce decree or opposing recognition and enforcement of that decree in Michigan.”