savings clause in Michigan

2025The Court of Appeals affirmed, likewise relying on the savings clause and noting that it “is settled law in Michigan that the courts will uphold a contractual provision limiting the time to bring suit where that limitation is reasonable . . . .” Herweyer v Clark Hwy Servs, Inc, 212 Mich App 105, 107 ; 537 NW2d 225 (1995), rev’d 455 Mich 14 (1997), in turn overruled by Rory, 473 Mich 457 . 9 written, the particular agreement concerned shall be limited to allow its enforcement as far as legally possible.” [Id. at 16-17.] 9 Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals did not directly determine whe

2025HERWEYER v CLARK HWY SERVS, INC In 1997, this Court in Herweyer considered an employment contract that included a six-month limitations period. 52 The contract also contained a savings clause—if any part of the contract were found to be unenforceable, it would be enforced “ ‘as far as legally possible.’ ” 53 After being terminated from his seasonal job, the Herweyer plaintiff brought various claims against his former employer. 54 But he did so 31 months after his termination. 55 The trial court and the Court of Appeals both concluded that, regardless of 50 Id. 51 Id. at 142-143 . 52 Herweyer,

2025HERWEYER v CLARK HWY SERVS, INC In 1997, this Court in Herweyer considered an employment contract that included a six-month limitations period. 52 The contract also contained a savings clause—if any part of the contract were found to be unenforceable, it would be enforced “ ‘as far as legally possible.’ ” 53 After being terminated from his seasonal job, the Herweyer plaintiff brought various claims against his former employer. 54 But he did so 31 months after his termination. 55 The trial court and the Court of Appeals both concluded that, regardless of 50 Id. 51 Id. at 142-143 . 52 Herweyer,

2024“Arbitrators exceed their power when they ‘act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of 5 The contracts also contained a savings clause stating that “[i]n the event any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable, then such provision shall be deemed deleted, but shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement”, which defendant’s counsel alerted the court to during the hearing on its motion for summary disposition and to compel arbitration. -5- controlling principles of law.’ ” Saveski, 261 Mich App a

2024“Arbitrators exceed their power when they ‘act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of 5 The contracts also contained a savings clause stating that “[i]n the event any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable, then such provision shall be deemed deleted, but shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement”, which defendant’s counsel alerted the court to during the hearing on its motion for summary disposition and to compel arbitration. -5- controlling principles of law.’ ” Saveski, 261 Mich App a

2024“Arbitrators exceed their power when they ‘act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of 5 The contracts also contained a savings clause stating that “[i]n the event any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable, then such provision shall be deemed deleted, but shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement”, which defendant’s counsel alerted the court to during the hearing on its motion for summary disposition and to compel arbitration. -5- controlling principles of law.’ ” Saveski, 261 Mich App a

2023It thus allows the lender to “charge usurious rates with impunity by making that rate conditional upon its legality and relying upon the illegal rate’s automatic rescission when discovered and challenged by the borrower.” Swindell v Fed Nat’l Mtg Ass’n, 330 NC 153, 160; 409 SE2d 892 (1991).

2021However, it is only incidentally related, as there is no “sufficient causal nexus” between the two, Orzel, 449 Mich at 564 , because the usurious interest rate was not authorized under the terms of the mortgage note, when giving effect to the usury- savings clause.

2000It is significant that Congress retained the savings clause of the predecessor statute, which preserved “the remedies now existing at common law or by statute.” Id. at 232 , 115 S Ct 817 Qquoting 49 USC § 1506 ). [Taj Mahal Travel, supra, p 194.] The saving clause has been amended and recodified, and now states that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” 49 USC 40120(c).

2000It is significant that Congress retained the savings clause of the predecessor statute, which preserved “the remedies now existing at common law or by statute.” Id. at 232 , 115 S Ct 817 Qquoting 49 USC § 1506 ). [Taj Mahal Travel, supra, p 194.] The saving clause has been amended and recodified, and now states that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” 49 USC 40120(c).

1995But an action shall not be brought under this provision unless the personal representative commences it within 3 years after the period of limitations has run. [MCL 600.5852; MSA 27A.5852.] Relying on Szydelko, supra, plaintiff argues that the two-year period for filing suit contained in the above provision does not begin until letters of authority are given to the personal representative, regardless of when and if letters of authority are earlier given to a temporary personal representative.

1992But see Michigan United Food & Commercial Workers Unions v Baerwaldt, 767 F2d 308, 312-313 (CA 6, 1985); Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Mutual Savings & Loan Ass’n, 672 F Supp 997, 1000 (ED Mich, 1987); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v American Community Mutual Ins Co, 659 F Supp 635 , 637-639 (ED Mich, 1987), aff'd 863 F2d 49 (1988) (stop-loss insurance only did not affect the status of an employee benefit plan as insured for purposes of the savings clause pursuant to the erisa).

1989See for example Wakefield v Hills, 173 Mich App 215, 217 ; 433 NW2d 410 (1988), and Winfrey v Farhat, 382 Mich 380, 389-390 ; 170 NW2d 34 (1969) (applying the savings clause of RJA § 9905(1)). 3 The Dyke Court reaffirmed the discovery rule in Johnson for purposes of the limitation period under the RJA.

1989See for example Wakefield v Hills, 173 Mich App 215, 217 ; 433 NW2d 410 (1988), and Winfrey v Farhat, 382 Mich 380, 389-390 ; 170 NW2d 34 (1969) (applying the savings clause of RJA § 9905(1)). 3 The Dyke Court reaffirmed the discovery rule in Johnson for purposes of the limitation period under the RJA.

1986Wadsworth v Whaland, 562 F 2d 70 (CA 1, 1977).

1986The scope and effect of the preemption provision and the savings clause was recently considered by the United States Supreme Court in Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Massachusetts, 471 US —; 105 S Ct 2380 ; 85 L Ed 2d 728 (1985).

1986The scope and effect of the preemption provision and the savings clause was recently considered by the United States Supreme Court in Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Massachusetts, 471 US —; 105 S Ct 2380 ; 85 L Ed 2d 728 (1985).

1981In Johnson v Johnson, 346 Mich 418, 426 ; 78 NW2d 216 (1956), the Supreme Court held that a circuit court has authority to grant support only until the children attain the age of majority.

1981In Johnson v Johnson, 346 Mich 418, 426 ; 78 NW2d 216 (1956), the Supreme Court held that a circuit court has authority to grant support only until the children attain the age of majority.

1976Also see Cronin v Minster Press, 56 Mich App 471, 480-481 ; 224 NW2d 336 (1974), where this Court ruled that an action commenced in a foreign jurisdiction came within the savings clause of MCLA 600.5856(2); MSA 27A.5856(2).

1976Also see Cronin v Minster Press, 56 Mich App 471, 480-481 ; 224 NW2d 336 (1974), where this Court ruled that an action commenced in a foreign jurisdiction came within the savings clause of MCLA 600.5856(2); MSA 27A.5856(2).

1972National Labor Relations Board v General Motors Corp, 373 US 734, 738-739 ; 83 S Ct 1453 ; 10 L Ed 2d 670 (1963).

1972National Labor Relations Board v General Motors Corp, 373 US 734, 738-739 ; 83 S Ct 1453 ; 10 L Ed 2d 670 (1963).

1968In People v. Lowell (1930), 250 Mich 349, 356 , the Michigan Supreme Court held that in the absence of a savings clause, the effect of an amendment of an existing statutory provision “to read as follows” was “to strike the former section from the law, obliterate it entirely, and substitute the new section in its place.” The Court held the statutory amendment before it repealed the criminal law provision which it replaced, and there could be no prosecutions under the repealed provision.