common-law discovery rule in Michigan

2018“A claim of breach of fiduciary duty . . . accrues when the beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach.” Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018“A claim of breach of fiduciary duty . . . accrues when the beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach.” Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018“A claim of breach of fiduciary duty . . . accrues when the beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach.” Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018“A claim of breach of fiduciary duty . . . accrues when the beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach.” Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2007The majority asserts, ante at 12, that because the Legislature included MCL 600.5855,19 the application of the common-law discovery rule will render § 5855 18 Millross, supra at 185-186 . 19 MCL 600.5855 states: If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the c

2007The majority asserts, ante at 12, that because the Legislature included MCL 600.5855,19 the application of the common-law discovery rule will render § 5855 18 Millross, supra at 185-186 . 19 MCL 600.5855 states: If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the c

2007The court concluded regarding defendants Buckler and Shirley and Lawrence Gorton that “[a] claim for personal injury accrues when all of the elements are present and can be properly pleaded in a complaint,” citing, e.g., Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equip Repair & Service Co, 388 Mich 146 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972).

2007The court concluded regarding defendants Buckler and Shirley and Lawrence Gorton that “[a] claim for personal injury accrues when all of the elements are present and can be properly pleaded in a complaint,” citing, e.g., Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equip Repair & Service Co, 388 Mich 146 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972).

2007Regarding Bekofske and MFO, the court granted their summary disposition motions on the basis that if Mott and MFO had failed to provide adequate security, this claim was known to plaintiff at the time of the killing, and the cause of action could have been brought at that time. 5 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding that the common-law discovery rule tolled the limitations period for all plaintiff’s claims, including the improper security claims against Bekofske and MFO. 266 Mich App 297 ; 701 NW2d 756 (2005).

2007Regarding Bekofske and MFO, the court granted their summary disposition motions on the basis that if Mott and MFO had failed to provide adequate security, this claim was known to plaintiff at the time of the killing, and the cause of action could have been brought at that time. 5 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding that the common-law discovery rule tolled the limitations period for all plaintiff’s claims, including the improper security claims against Bekofske and MFO. 266 Mich App 297 ; 701 NW2d 756 (2005).

2007Its decisions applying the common-law discovery rule should be upheld under that 12 402 Mich 348, 359 ; 262 NW2d 653 (1978). 20 doctrine because (1) the decisions recognizing the rule were correctly decided, (2) a change in the discovery rule would have a drastic effect on plaintiffs’ rights, (3) the discovery rule is workable, and (4) abolishing the rule will lead to constitutional violations as well as absurd and unjust results.

2007Its decisions applying the common-law discovery rule should be upheld under that 12 402 Mich 348, 359 ; 262 NW2d 653 (1978). 20 doctrine because (1) the decisions recognizing the rule were correctly decided, (2) a change in the discovery rule would have a drastic effect on plaintiffs’ rights, (3) the discovery rule is workable, and (4) abolishing the rule will lead to constitutional violations as well as absurd and unjust results.

2007The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. 3 Boyle v Gen Motors Corp, 468 Mich 226 , 231 n 5; 661 NW2d 557 (2003). 4 silent on tolling based on discovery, until she knew the identity of the killer, the period of limitations was tolled.4 The Genesee Circuit Court ruled for plaintiff, adopting her theory that the common-law discovery rule remains viable in Michigan and thus applicable here.

2007The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. 3 Boyle v Gen Motors Corp, 468 Mich 226 , 231 n 5; 661 NW2d 557 (2003). 4 silent on tolling based on discovery, until she knew the identity of the killer, the period of limitations was tolled.4 The Genesee Circuit Court ruled for plaintiff, adopting her theory that the common-law discovery rule remains viable in Michigan and thus applicable here.

2007People v Nutt, 469 Mich 565 ; 677 NW2d 1 (2004).

2007People v Nutt, 469 Mich 565 ; 677 NW2d 1 (2004).

2007Second, even assuming that § 5805(10) should alone govern, we would be hard-pressed to inject a common-law discovery rule into this statute’s plain language, which unambiguously establishes that the “period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury.” Finally, using a discovery rule to avoid the plain language of § 5805(10) presents the same problem as does applying the rule under § 5827; it ignores the remainder of the statutory scheme, which clearly provides for discovery-based tolling when the Legislature deems it appropriate, as further discussed infra. 8 This is consi

2007Second, even assuming that § 5805(10) should alone govern, we would be hard-pressed to inject a common-law discovery rule into this statute’s plain language, which unambiguously establishes that the “period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury.” Finally, using a discovery rule to avoid the plain language of § 5805(10) presents the same problem as does applying the rule under § 5827; it ignores the remainder of the statutory scheme, which clearly provides for discovery-based tolling when the Legislature deems it appropriate, as further discussed infra. 8 This is consi

2007This Court has held that “[s]tatutes should be construed (…continued) Roycroft v Hammons, 203 F Supp 2d 1053 (SD Iowa, 2002).

2007This Court has held that “[s]tatutes should be construed (…continued) Roycroft v Hammons, 203 F Supp 2d 1053 (SD Iowa, 2002).

2024This is a power the Legislature has because such a statute of limitations bears a reasonable relationship to the permissible legislative objective of protecting defendants from stale or fraudulent claims. [Trentadue, 479 Mich at 390-392 (citation omitted; emphasis added).] 10 Compare Trentadue, 479 Mich at 382 (holding that the common-law discovery rule did not extend the three-year statute of limitations for wrongful-death actions), and Lemmerman, 449 Mich at 60 (holding that the discovery rule did not extend the limitations period for negligence actions based on sexual assault), with Moll, 4

2024This is a power the Legislature has because such a statute of limitations bears a reasonable relationship to the permissible legislative objective of protecting defendants from stale or fraudulent claims. [Trentadue, 479 Mich at 390-392 (citation omitted; emphasis added).] 10 Compare Trentadue, 479 Mich at 382 (holding that the common-law discovery rule did not extend the three-year statute of limitations for wrongful-death actions), and Lemmerman, 449 Mich at 60 (holding that the discovery rule did not extend the limitations period for negligence actions based on sexual assault), with Moll, 4

2007Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280 (2007).

2007NOTES [1] Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc., 479 Mich. 280 , 737 N.W.2d 447 (2007). [2] MCL 324.1701 et seq. [3] U.S. Const., Am.

2007See Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (2006) (preventing trial by jury); Bierlein v Schneider, 478 Mich 893 (2007) (preventing an injured child from utilizing an existing Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378 (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby depriving a plaintiff of an opportunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts).

2007See Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109 , 683 N.W.2d 611 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 , 719 N.W.2d 809 (2006) (preventing trial by jury); Bierlein v. Schneider, 478 Mich. 893 , 732 N.W.2d *333 102 (2007) (preventing an injured child from utilizing an existing Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 , 738 N.W.2d 664 (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby depriving a plaintiff of an opportunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts).

2007See Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (2006) (preventing trial by jury); Bierlein v Schneider, 478 Mich 893 (2007) (preventing an injured child from utilizing an existing Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378 (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby depriving a plaintiff of an opportunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts).

2007See Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109 , 683 N.W.2d 611 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 , 719 N.W.2d 809 (2006) (preventing trial by jury); Bierlein v. Schneider, 478 Mich. 893 , 732 N.W.2d *333 102 (2007) (preventing an injured child from utilizing an existing Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 , 738 N.W.2d 664 (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby depriving a plaintiff of an opportunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts).

2007This Court has held that “[sjtatutes should be construed so as to prevent absurd results, injustice or prejudice to the public interest.” McAuley v Gen Motors Corp, 457 Mich 513, 518 ; 578 NW2d 282 (1998).

2007This Court has held that “[sjtatutes should be construed so as to prevent absurd results, injustice or prejudice to the public interest.” McAuley v Gen Motors Corp, 457 Mich 513, 518 ; 578 NW2d 282 (1998).

1997Id.