908 N.W.2d 919
Mich. Ct. App.2017Background
- Nortley retained attorney Dennis Hurst in August 2008 for a divorce; the judgment of divorce was entered June 12, 2009 and terminated representation 21 days after entry (ceasing July 3, 2009).
- Nortley later learned (allegedly on September 5, 2015) that Social Security spousal benefits generally require a marriage of ten years or more and sued for legal malpractice on January 15, 2016.
- Malpractice accrual rule: a claim accrues when the professional stops serving the plaintiff on the matter (MCL 600.5838(1)); statutory deadlines include 2-year limitations, 6-month discovery rule, and a 6-year statute of repose (MCL 600.5838b(1)).
- The six-year statute of repose was enacted effective January 2, 2013 (2012 PA 582); Nortley’s claim accrued in 2009 and she filed in 2016, after the six-year repose period expired.
- Lower court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) as time-barred; Nortley argued the repose statute should not apply retroactively and that applying it violated due process.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the post-enactment repose statute applied to her still-viable claim and did not violate due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-year statute of repose enacted in 2013 can bar a malpractice claim that accrued in 2009 | Nortley: statute enacted after accrual cannot be applied retroactively; her suit is timely because filed within six months of discovery | Defendants: the repose is a substantive time cap that applies as written to claims still viable when statute took effect | The court held the repose applied; because the claim was still within permissible time in 2013, the statute did not retroactively extinguish a vested right and bars the 2016 suit |
| Whether discovery after the repose period saves the claim under the discovery rule | Nortley: discovery within six months makes the complaint timely | Defendants: statute of repose caps time regardless of discovery; repose supersedes discovery tolling after six years | The court held discovery does not override the statute of repose; repose caps the time to bring suit |
| Whether applying the statute of repose to bar the claim violates due process | Nortley: retroactive application is unfair where she discovered the claim only after repose expired | Defendants: statute reasonably protects professionals from stale claims and serves permissible legislative objectives | The court held no due-process violation; statute reasonably relates to legitimate legislative purpose and did not immediately extinguish her claim when enacted |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was appropriate | Nortley: factual dispute about advice given and discovery timing precludes dismissal | Defendants: statutory timeliness is a legal bar appropriate for (C)(7) dismissal | The court held (C)(7) dismissal proper because timeliness presented no factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich. App. 58 (trial court’s summary-disposition standard explained)
- Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC, 307 Mich. App. 220 (statute-of-limitations review standard)
- Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich. 289 (statutory‑interpretation principles)
- Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 456 Mich. 511 (policy favoring repose to protect defendants from stale claims)
- Davis v. State Employees’ Ret. Bd., 272 Mich. App. 151 (prospective application presumption; retrospective application exceptions)
- O’Brien v. Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich. 1 (upholding six-year repose for architects/engineers as consistent with due process)