Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
February 08, 2016

MSC to determine whether statute operates as statute of repose or statute of limitations

In Frank v. Linkner, No. 151888, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider when the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued and whether MCL 450.4515(1)(e) constitutes a statute of repose, a statute of limitations, or both.  MCL 450.4515(1)(e) sets forth the time period a member may bring an oppression claim for damages, which is either three years after the cause of action accrues, or two years after its discovery, whichever comes first.  The trial court determined the plaintiffs’ action was time barred because MCL 450.4515(1)(e) acted as a three-year statute of repose.  The Court of Appeals concluded the statute was not a statute of repose, but a statute of limitations.  The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on two issues: (1) whether MCL 4515(1)(e) is a statute of repose, a statute of limitations, or both; and (2) when the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued.
To read our previous blog post about the Court of Appeals’ opinion, click here.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -