515 Mich. 61
Mich.2024Background
- Plaintiff Karen Carter slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her apartment complex in January 2018, allegedly suffering injuries.
- She sued the property manager, DTN Management Company, in April 2021, alleging negligence and statutory breach.
- Defendant argued suit was time-barred: Michigan law generally gives three years for such claims (here, until January 2021).
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Orders AO 2020-3 and AO 2020-18, which excluded days during the state of emergency from time calculations for certain legal filings.
- The trial court dismissed Carter's claim as untimely; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the administrative orders valid; the Supreme Court granted leave to address the orders' constitutionality and effect.
- The case turns on whether the Michigan Supreme Court had constitutional authority to issue the pandemic administrative orders affecting statute of limitations computations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Supreme Court have authority to issue AO 2020-3 & AO 2020-18 | Court had constitutional authority to manage procedures/exigencies | Orders impermissibly altered substantive law on limitations, a legislative function | Yes; Court acted within its constitutional powers (practice/procedure and superintending control). |
| Did the orders toll (extend) the statute of limitations? | Orders merely adjusted time computation, not substantive rights | Orders effectively tolled/extending a substantive legislative deadline | Orders did not substantively toll but changed calculation method; they were procedural and permissible. |
| Is the statute of limitations procedural or substantive law? | Can be impacted by court’s procedural rules in emergencies | Substantive; only legislature can alter limitation periods | No need to overrule prior law; as applied, the orders were within the Court's procedural powers. |
| Was Carter’s complaint timely under the administrative orders? | Yes; pandemic exclusion pushed deadline to April 2021 | No; pandemic orders were unconstitutional so deadline was January 2021 | Yes; exclusion period was valid, suit was timely, trial court's summary disposition reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich 594 (Mich. 2003) (statutes of limitations are substantive law, not procedural—central to arguments about Court’s authority)
- Buscaino v. Rhodes, 385 Mich 474 (Mich. 1971) (prior precedent—statutes of limitations can be procedural—overruled in Gladych)
- McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich 15 (Mich. 1999) (distinction between court’s procedural authority and limitations on altering substantive rights)
- In re Huff, 352 Mich 402 (Mich. 1958) (scope of Supreme Court’s superintending authority during exigency)
- In re Certified Questions from US Dist Ct, 506 Mich 332 (Mich. 2020) (COVID-related executive powers context)