Christopher Foltz v. Julie Fox
332256
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff was injured on June 5, 2012; MCL 600.5805(10) imposes a three-year limitations period for such claims.
- Plaintiff filed a first complaint on March 31, 2015 (within the limitations period) but never served the defendant; that suit was dismissed for nonservice on October 21, 2015.
- Plaintiff sought an extension/reopening of the first case (denied), appealed (appeal dismissed for failure to pursue), and then filed a second complaint that she served within a month.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing the second complaint was time-barred because the limitations period was not tolled by the first filing.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant; plaintiff appealed challenging tolling and arguing equitable tolling/equitable concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing (but not served) of the first complaint tolled the statute under MCL 600.5856(a) | Foltz: the initial filing should toll limitations because the suit was not adjudicated on the merits | Fox: under current MCL 600.5856(a), filing alone does not toll; service within the time set by court rules is required | Filing without timely service did not toll the statute; (a) inapplicable because first complaint was never served |
| Whether MCL 600.5856(b) tolled limitations because jurisdiction was "otherwise acquired" when the first complaint was filed | Foltz: jurisdiction was acquired (citing long-arm concepts) upon filing | Fox: "otherwise acquired" refers to substitutes for service (consent, voluntary appearance), not nonjudicial conduct or mere notice | (b) inapplicable; jurisdiction is not acquired by nonjudicial notice or mere filing without accepted substitutes for service |
| Whether equitable tolling should apply | Foltz: equitable tolling should save the claim because defendant had notice and would not be prejudiced; plaintiff would be prejudiced if barred | Fox: statutory scheme controls tolling; equitable tolling is inappropriate absent court-created confusion | Equitable tolling denied: Supreme Court precedent restricts equitable tolling to narrow situations (court-created confusion), none here |
| Whether public-policy or prejudice arguments overcome limitations | Foltz: public policy and fairness favor allowing the suit | Fox: statutes of limitations and case law displace such equitable reworking; defendant has statutory defense | Court refused to rewrite statute for policy reasons; plaintiff failed to comply with legislatively set limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Buscaino v. Rhodes, 385 Mich 474 (1971) (earlier decision holding filing alone could suffice to commence action; later undermined)
- Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich 594 (2003) (holding filing alone does not toll statute; MCL 600.5856 requires an event described in the statute)
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich 378 (2007) (equitable tolling is limited; available only where courts themselves created confusion about filing time)
- Mair v. Consumers Power Co., 419 Mich 74 (1984) ("jurisdiction otherwise acquired" refers to substitutes for service such as consent or voluntary appearance)
- Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich 562 (2005) (discusses limited role of equity when statutory scheme governs accrual and tolling)