laches doctrine in Michigan

2016The doctrine of laches only is “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); see also Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 457 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008) (“For laches to apply, inexcusable delay in bringing suit must have resulted in prejudice.”).

2016The doctrine of laches only is “applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that results in prejudice to a party.” Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 507 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); see also Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 457 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008) (“For laches to apply, inexcusable delay in bringing suit must have resulted in prejudice.”).

2020Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich 1, 11 ; 490 NW2d 305 (1992).

2020Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich 1, 11 ; 490 NW2d 305 (1992).

2025See, e.g., Brown v Holton Public Schools, 397 Mich 71, 73-74 ; 243 NW2d 255 (1976); Iron Co v Sundberg, Carlson & Associates, Inc, 222 Mich App 120, 126 ; 564 NW2d 78 (1997); [Bennett v Shearson Lehman-Am Express, Inc, 168 Mich App 80, 83 ; 423 NW2d 911 (1987)]. [Id. at 232-233 (footnotes omitted).][6] In Am Federation of State, Co & Municipal Employees, Council 25, AFL-CIO v Hamtramck Housing Comm’n, 290 Mich App 672 ; 804 NW2d 120 (2010), the issue before this Court was “the timing of the demand for arbitration” by the plaintiff’s complaint for arbitration.

2025See, e.g., Brown v Holton Public Schools, 397 Mich 71, 73-74 ; 243 NW2d 255 (1976); Iron Co v Sundberg, Carlson & Associates, Inc, 222 Mich App 120, 126 ; 564 NW2d 78 (1997); [Bennett v Shearson Lehman-Am Express, Inc, 168 Mich App 80, 83 ; 423 NW2d 911 (1987)]. [Id. at 232-233 (footnotes omitted).][6] In Am Federation of State, Co & Municipal Employees, Council 25, AFL-CIO v Hamtramck Housing Comm’n, 290 Mich App 672 ; 804 NW2d 120 (2010), the issue before this Court was “the timing of the demand for arbitration” by the plaintiff’s complaint for arbitration.

2018Bd. of Trustees v. Waldo , 168 Mich.App. 565 , 575, 425 N.W.2d 180 (1988) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] "The general rule is that zoning authorities will not be estopped from enforcing their ordinance absent exceptional circumstances." Id ."Just as with a laches defense, prejudice is a mandatory element." Lyon Charter Twp. , 317 Mich.App. at 491 , 896 N.W.2d 477 .

2018“Just as with a laches defense, prejudice is a mandatory element.” Lyons Charter Twp, 317 Mich App at 490-491 .

2020Thus, the trial court applied the doctrine of laches to Bayberry’s common law claim. -12- “Laches is an affirmative defense based primarily on circumstances that render it inequitable to grant relief to a dilatory plaintiff.” Attorney General v PowerPick Club, 287 Mich App 13, 51 ; 783 NW2d 515 (2010).

2020Thus, the trial court applied the doctrine of laches to Bayberry’s common law claim. -12- “Laches is an affirmative defense based primarily on circumstances that render it inequitable to grant relief to a dilatory plaintiff.” Attorney General v PowerPick Club, 287 Mich App 13, 51 ; 783 NW2d 515 (2010).

2017McBroom contends that the trial court erroneously relied on parol evidence to find that plaintiff was entitled to payment of a signing bonus. 1 Given our resolution of this issue, we need not address McBroom’s arguments regarding the statute of frauds, the doctrine of laches, case evaluation, insufficient evidence, and post-judgment relief with respect to Lehman’s claims. -8- “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2017McBroom contends that the trial court erroneously relied on parol evidence to find that plaintiff was entitled to payment of a signing bonus. 1 Given our resolution of this issue, we need not address McBroom’s arguments regarding the statute of frauds, the doctrine of laches, case evaluation, insufficient evidence, and post-judgment relief with respect to Lehman’s claims. -8- “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2025Moreover, in 1998, this Court stated that “Michigan law . . . provides that arbitrators, rather than courts, should decide the application of such potential defenses to arbitration as contractual limitation periods, statutes of limitation, and the doctrine of laches,” Amtower, 232 Mich App at 233 , although a careful reading of that decision might suggest that it is limited to timeliness defenses to the underlying claim, not the overall request for arbitration itself.

2012Procedural arbitrability refers to defenses to arbitration such as timeliness, waiver, etc., and, on those issues (which are not present in this case), “Michigan law. . . provides that arbitrators, rather than courts, should decide the application of such potential defenses to arbitration as contractual limitation periods, statutes of limitation, and the doctrine of laches.” Amtower v William C Roney & Co (On Remand), 232 Mich App 226, 233 ; 590 NW2d 580 (1998).

2025More recently, however, in Iron Co v Sundberg, Carlson & Assoc, Inc, 222 Mich App 120 ; 564 NW2d 78 (1997), this Court rejected the defendant’s argument that “the trial court should have used its equitable powers over an arbitration proceeding” under MCL 600.5035 of the MAA to rule that the plaintiff’s arbitration claims “were barred by the doctrine of laches.” Id. at 126 .

2025More recently, however, in Iron Co v Sundberg, Carlson & Assoc, Inc, 222 Mich App 120 ; 564 NW2d 78 (1997), this Court rejected the defendant’s argument that “the trial court should have used its equitable powers over an arbitration proceeding” under MCL 600.5035 of the MAA to rule that the plaintiff’s arbitration claims “were barred by the doctrine of laches.” Id. at 126 .

2023Plaintiff further alleges that laches cannot apply because equitable doctrines are inapplicable where a remedy is provided by statute, citing Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 318 ; 917 NW2d 685 (2018).

2023Plaintiff further alleges that laches cannot apply because equitable doctrines are inapplicable where a remedy is provided by statute, citing Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 318 ; 917 NW2d 685 (2018).

2021A. PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERPIN AN EQUITABLE-SUBROGATION CLAIM “Equitable subrogation is a flexible, elastic doctrine of equity.” 19 Thus, “[i]ts application ‘should and must proceed on the case-by-case analysis characteristic of equity jurisprudence.’ ” 20 Equitable subrogation is the “mode which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice, equity, and good conscience ought to pay it.” 21 Equitable subrogation has been invoked successfully in a variety of circumstances, 22 but “the mere fact that [it] has not been previously invoked in a particular situation is no

2021A. PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERPIN AN EQUITABLE-SUBROGATION CLAIM “Equitable subrogation is a flexible, elastic doctrine of equity.” 19 Thus, “[i]ts application ‘should and must proceed on the case-by-case analysis characteristic of equity jurisprudence.’ ” 20 Equitable subrogation is the “mode which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice, equity, and good conscience ought to pay it.” 21 Equitable subrogation has been invoked successfully in a variety of circumstances, 22 but “the mere fact that [it] has not been previously invoked in a particular situation is no

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2021Fourth and finally, we analyze the interplay among rescission, Esurance’s alleged volunteer status, and its claim for 14 Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296, 302 ; 931 NW2d 604 (2019). 15 Wigfall v Detroit, 504 Mich 330 , 337; 934 NW2d 760 (2019). 16 O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). 18 See Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (applying this principle to the equitable doctrine of laches). 7 equitable subrogation—namely,

2018“In order to assert a laches defense successfully, a defendant must show that the passage of time combined with intervening circumstances render it inequitable to grant relief to the plaintiff.” Badon v Gen Motors Corp, 188 Mich App 430, 436 ; 470 NW2d 436 (1991).

2018“In order to assert a laches defense successfully, a defendant must show that the passage of time combined with intervening circumstances render it inequitable to grant relief to the plaintiff.” Badon v Gen Motors Corp, 188 Mich App 430, 436 ; 470 NW2d 436 (1991).

2018Bd. of Trustees v. Waldo , 168 Mich.App. 565 , 575, 425 N.W.2d 180 (1988) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] "The general rule is that zoning authorities will not be estopped from enforcing their ordinance absent exceptional circumstances." Id ."Just as with a laches defense, prejudice is a mandatory element." Lyon Charter Twp. , 317 Mich.App. at 491 , 896 N.W.2d 477 .

2018Bd. of Trustees v. Waldo , 168 Mich.App. 565 , 575, 425 N.W.2d 180 (1988) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] "The general rule is that zoning authorities will not be estopped from enforcing their ordinance absent exceptional circumstances." Id ."Just as with a laches defense, prejudice is a mandatory element." Lyon Charter Twp. , 317 Mich.App. at 491 , 896 N.W.2d 477 .

2017“If a plaintiff has not exercised reasonable diligence in vindicating his or her rights, a court sitting in equity may withhold relief on the ground that the plaintiff is chargeable with laches.”16 For the doctrine of laches to apply, there must be an unreasonable delay that results in “circumstances that would render inequitable any grant of relief to the dilatory plaintiff.”17 It is 15 Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 315 Mich App 763, 781-782 ; 891 NW2d 13 (2016) (opinion by SAWYER, J), lv gtd 500 Mich 990 (2017) (emphasis added). 16 Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 114 ; 832 NW2d 439 (

2017“If a plaintiff has not exercised reasonable diligence in vindicating his or her rights, a court sitting in equity may withhold relief on the ground that the plaintiff is chargeable with laches.”16 For the doctrine of laches to apply, there must be an unreasonable delay that results in “circumstances that would render inequitable any grant of relief to the dilatory plaintiff.”17 It is 15 Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 315 Mich App 763, 781-782 ; 891 NW2d 13 (2016) (opinion by SAWYER, J), lv gtd 500 Mich 990 (2017) (emphasis added). 16 Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 114 ; 832 NW2d 439 (

2015The first case they cite, Lewis v Poel, 376 Mich 167, 169-170 ; 136 NW2d 7 (1965), held only that a claim, one element of which sought an accounting, was not barred by the doctrine of laches.

2015The first case they cite, Lewis v Poel, 376 Mich 167, 169-170 ; 136 NW2d 7 (1965), held only that a claim, one element of which sought an accounting, was not barred by the doctrine of laches.

1942Where the situation of the parties has not been altered, and one has not been put in a worse condition by the delay of the other, the defense of laches does not generally apply.' Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co. , 96 Tenn. 252 , 286 ( 34 S.W. 209 , 31 L.R.A. 706, 714 )." In that case, the court divided equally on the effect of 23 years' delay in starting suit for specific performance.

1928Where the situation of the parties has not been altered, and one has not been put in a worse condition by the delay of the other, the defense of laches does not generally apply." Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co. , 31 L.R.A. 706, 714 ( 96 Tenn. 252 , 34 S.W. 209 ).

1942Laches may be declared to be a bar long before the statute has run, or, where equitable reasons for delay have been shown, relief may be granted at a time beyond the statutory period." Rodgers v. Beckel , 172 Mich. 544 , 550 .

1928Laches may be declared to be a bar long before the statute has run, or, where equitable reasons for delay have been shown, relief may be granted at a time beyond the statutory period." Rodgers v. Beckel , 172 Mich. 544 , 550 .