statutory notice requirement in Michigan

2019Comm. , 477 Mich. 197 , 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007), that a suit may be dismissed for failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement even if the defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of notice, abrogating our precedent holding notice requirements unconstitutional with no actual prejudice.

2019Comm. , 477 Mich. 197 , 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007), that a suit may be dismissed for failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement even if the defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of notice, abrogating our precedent holding notice requirements unconstitutional with no actual prejudice.

2018Id. at ___; slip op at 3-4.

2018Id. at ___; slip op at 3-4.

2020The Court explained, “[I]nasmuch as the Legislature is not even required to provide a defective highway exception to governmental immunity, it surely has the authority to allow such suits only upon compliance with rational notice limits.” Rowland, 477 Mich at 212 . 2 Trentadue, 479 Mich at 386-387 (considering the statute of limitations for a wrongful- death action). 3 In McCahan, 492 Mich at 732-733 , the Court determined that the notice requirement of MCL 600.6431 is a “condition precedent to sue the state,” McCahan v Brennan, 291 Mich App 430, 433 ; 804 NW2d 906 (2011), aff’d 492 Mich 730 (

2012The Court specifically noted that “the Michigan Supreme Court overturned several cases that had required the state to show actual prejudice when a plaintiff failed to comply with a statutory filing requirement.” Id. at 434 . 4 have held that the university’s actual knowledge of plaintiff’s intent to file a claim sufficed to satisfy the statutory notice requirement of MCL 600.6431.5 We ordered argument on plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal6 and now affirm.

2018Detroit v Oakland Circuit Judge, 237 Mich 446, 450 ; 212 NW 217 (1927). 7 Because we find no conflict between Rusha and the earlier Michigan Supreme Court cases cited by defendants here, we decline defendants’ request to convene a conflict panel under MCR 7.215(J). 8 State defendants direct this Court’s attention to Bacon v Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Claims, issued June 7, 2017 (Docket No. 16-000312-MM), in which the court suggested -11- Applying the harsh and unreasonable consequences exception to the facts presented in Rusha, the Court concluded that there was no reason to

2018Detroit v Oakland Circuit Judge, 237 Mich 446, 450 ; 212 NW 217 (1927). 7 Because we find no conflict between Rusha and the earlier Michigan Supreme Court cases cited by defendants here, we decline defendants’ request to convene a conflict panel under MCR 7.215(J). 8 State defendants direct this Court’s attention to Bacon v Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Claims, issued June 7, 2017 (Docket No. 16-000312-MM), in which the court suggested -11- Applying the harsh and unreasonable consequences exception to the facts presented in Rusha, the Court concluded that there was no reason to

2020The Court explained, “[I]nasmuch as the Legislature is not even required to provide a defective highway exception to governmental immunity, it surely has the authority to allow such suits only upon compliance with rational notice limits.” Rowland, 477 Mich at 212 . 2 Trentadue, 479 Mich at 386-387 (considering the statute of limitations for a wrongful- death action). 3 In McCahan, 492 Mich at 732-733 , the Court determined that the notice requirement of MCL 600.6431 is a “condition precedent to sue the state,” McCahan v Brennan, 291 Mich App 430, 433 ; 804 NW2d 906 (2011), aff’d 492 Mich 730 (

2020The Court explained, “[I]nasmuch as the Legislature is not even required to provide a defective highway exception to governmental immunity, it surely has the authority to allow such suits only upon compliance with rational notice limits.” Rowland, 477 Mich at 212 . 2 Trentadue, 479 Mich at 386-387 (considering the statute of limitations for a wrongful- death action). 3 In McCahan, 492 Mich at 732-733 , the Court determined that the notice requirement of MCL 600.6431 is a “condition precedent to sue the state,” McCahan v Brennan, 291 Mich App 430, 433 ; 804 NW2d 906 (2011), aff’d 492 Mich 730 (

2019This Court held that “[b]ecause it is undisputed that plaintiff did not serve his notice on any individual who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against defendant as required under MCL 691.1402(2), the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory notice requirement.” Id. at 43 .

2018Id. at 42-43 .

2018Detroit v Oakland Circuit Judge, 237 Mich 446, 450 ; 212 NW 217 (1927). 7 Because we find no conflict between Rusha and the earlier Michigan Supreme Court cases cited by defendants here, we decline defendants’ request to convene a conflict panel under MCR 7.215(J). 8 State defendants direct this Court’s attention to Bacon v Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Claims, issued June 7, 2017 (Docket No. 16-000312-MM), in which the court suggested -11- Applying the harsh and unreasonable consequences exception to the facts presented in Rusha, the Court concluded that there was no reason to

2018Detroit v Oakland Circuit Judge, 237 Mich 446, 450 ; 212 NW 217 (1927). 7 Because we find no conflict between Rusha and the earlier Michigan Supreme Court cases cited by defendants here, we decline defendants’ request to convene a conflict panel under MCR 7.215(J). 8 State defendants direct this Court’s attention to Bacon v Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Claims, issued June 7, 2017 (Docket No. 16-000312-MM), in which the court suggested -11- Applying the harsh and unreasonable consequences exception to the facts presented in Rusha, the Court concluded that there was no reason to

2010We disagree with the dissent's conclusion that our analysis in this case should be affected by the Supreme Court's order in Chambers v. Wayne Co. Airport Auth., 483 Mich. 1081 , 765 N.W.2d 890 (2009), which denied leave to appeal this Court's opinion in Chambers v. Wayne Co. Airport Auth ., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 5, 2008 (Docket No. 277900).

2010We disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that our analysis in this case should be affected by the Supreme Court’s order in Chambers v Wayne Co Airport Auth, 483 Mich 1081 (2009), which denied leave to appeal this Court’s opinion in Chambers v Wayne Co Airport Auth, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 5, 2008 (Docket No. 277900).

2002In Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365-368 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), our Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a governmental agency asserting a statutory notice defense show actual prejudice from the failure to provide the notice, recognizing the continued validity of the Court’s observation in Hobbs v Dep’t of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90 ; 247 NW2d 754 (1976), that actual prejudice to the governmental agency resulting from the lack of notice within the 120 days at issue in Hobbs was the only legitimate purpose the Court could posit for the notice provision.

2002In Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365-368 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), our Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a governmental agency asserting a statutory notice defense show actual prejudice from the failure to provide the notice, recognizing the continued validity of the Court’s observation in Hobbs v Dep’t of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90 ; 247 NW2d 754 (1976), that actual prejudice to the governmental agency resulting from the lack of notice within the 120 days at issue in Hobbs was the only legitimate purpose the Court could posit for the notice provision.

2025We address these arguments seriatim, and in doing so apply de novo review, Forton v St Clair Co Pub Guardian, 339 Mich App 73 , 82; 919 NW2d 659 (2018), to determine whether, under MCR 2.116(C)(7), “[e]ntry of judgment, dismissal of the action, or other relief is appropriate because of . . . immunity granted by law . . . .” A. CHRISTIE RETROACTIVITY As the parties recognized at oral argument, the conflict panel opinion in Hudson v Dep’t of Corrections (Hudson II), ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 367902); slip op at 5-6, lv pending, held that Christie applies retroactivel

2025Id. at 720- 721.

2024The circumstances of the present case, like the circumstances of Muskegon Treasurer, “do not justify application of the harsh-and- unreasonable consequences exception to the statutory notice requirement of MCL 211.78t(2).” Id. at ___; slip op at 7.

2023Finally, this Court clarified that, pursuant to Nelson v City of New York, 352 US 103 ; 77 S Ct 195 ; 1 L Ed 2d (1956), no compensable taking occurred when property owners had a statutory path to recover surplus proceeds but “failed to avail themselves of that procedure.” Id. at ___; slip op at 10.

2023Finally, this Court clarified that, pursuant to Nelson v City of New York, 352 US 103 ; 77 S Ct 195 ; 1 L Ed 2d (1956), no compensable taking occurred when property owners had a statutory path to recover surplus proceeds but “failed to avail themselves of that procedure.” Id. at ___; slip op at 10.

2018Rusha , 307 Mich. App. at 312 -313 , 859 N.W.2d 735 .

2018Rusha , 307 Mich. App. at 312 -313 , 859 N.W.2d 735 .

2014Notice provisions like this one generally give the state “time to investigate and to appropriate funds for settlement purposes,” Davis v Farmers Ins Group, 86 Mich App 45, 47 ; 272 NW2d 334 (1978), while simultaneously allowing the claimant to retain the full benefit of the applicable limitations period. 8 See, also, Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 212 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007).

2014Notice provisions like this one generally give the state “time to investigate and to appropriate funds for settlement purposes,” Davis v Farmers Ins Group, 86 Mich App 45, 47 ; 272 NW2d 334 (1978), while simultaneously allowing the claimant to retain the full benefit of the applicable limitations period. 8 See, also, Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 212 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007).

2010We disagree with the dissent's conclusion that our analysis in this case should be affected by the Supreme Court's order in Chambers v. Wayne Co. Airport Auth., 483 Mich. 1081 , 765 N.W.2d 890 (2009), which denied leave to appeal this Court's opinion in Chambers v. Wayne Co. Airport Auth ., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 5, 2008 (Docket No. 277900).

2002In Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365-368 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), our Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a governmental agency asserting a statutory notice defense show actual prejudice from the failure to provide the notice, recognizing the continued validity of the Court’s observation in Hobbs v Dep’t of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90 ; 247 NW2d 754 (1976), that actual prejudice to the governmental agency resulting from the lack of notice within the 120 days at issue in Hobbs was the only legitimate purpose the Court could posit for the notice provision.

2002In Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 365-368 ; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), our Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a governmental agency asserting a statutory notice defense show actual prejudice from the failure to provide the notice, recognizing the continued validity of the Court’s observation in Hobbs v Dep’t of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90 ; 247 NW2d 754 (1976), that actual prejudice to the governmental agency resulting from the lack of notice within the 120 days at issue in Hobbs was the only legitimate purpose the Court could posit for the notice provision.

2000In Brzezinski, supra at 679-680 , Judge Griffin’s dissent rejected a circuit court’s conclusion that a probate court’s order should be invalidated on the basis that the respondent’s continuing reimbursement obligation would not be modifiable.

1989Id.

1989Id.

1984Consequently, if a rate order were held void for failure to give notice, in subsequent proceedings a rate adjustment could be made only from the time of those subsequent proceedings, and thus the possibility of a rate adjustment for the time period between the original order and the subsequent proceedings would be irretrievably lost. *512 The holding in Northern Michigan Water Co v Public Service Comm, 381 Mich 340 ; 161 NW2d 584 (1968), supports our conclusion that the failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement did not render the September 21, 1970, rate order void and mandate th

1984Consequently, if a rate order were held void for failure to give notice, in subsequent proceedings a rate adjustment could be made only from the time of those subsequent proceedings, and thus the possibility of a rate adjustment for the time period between the original order and the subsequent proceedings would be irretrievably lost. *512 The holding in Northern Michigan Water Co v Public Service Comm, 381 Mich 340 ; 161 NW2d 584 (1968), supports our conclusion that the failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement did not render the September 21, 1970, rate order void and mandate th

1980She cites Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950), and Dow v Michigan, 396 Mich 192 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976).

1980She cites Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950), and Dow v Michigan, 396 Mich 192 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976).

1980She cites Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950), and Dow v Michigan, 396 Mich 192 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976).

1980She cites Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950), and Dow v Michigan, 396 Mich 192 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976).