Breach of contract; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5807(9); The common-law discovery rule; Trentadue v Buckler Lawn Sprinkler Co

The court held that the trial court should have granted defendant-Heritage Place’s motion for summary disposition on statute of limitation grounds under MCR 2.116(C)(7), and erred by holding the common-law discovery rule applied following the bench trial. Thus, in Docket No. 356948, the court reversed the trial court’s 12/11/20 order denying Heritage Place’s motion for summary disposition and vacated the 4/1/21 judgment. In Docket No. 358244, it vacated the trial court’s 5/14/21 order awarding plaintiff-Harriet Buck case evaluation sanctions and vacated the trial court’s 8/5/21 order denying Heritage Place’s motion for reconsideration. “Harriet acknowledged in the trial court that she did not bring her breach-of-contract claim within the statutory six-year period. Instead, she argued MCL 600.5855, the fraudulent concealment statute, applied to give her two years after she discovered the contract breach to bring suit.” In its motion for summary disposition, Heritage Place claimed that Harriet failed to plead “the acts or misrepresentations that comprised the fraudulent concealment,” and the court agreed. The “undisputed evidence established (1) agents of Heritage Place did not engage in affirmative acts or misrepresentation after July 2007, and (2) Harriet failed to exercise diligence to discover the breach-of-contract claim. Therefore, MCL 600.5855 did not toll the statute of limitations. Because there was no factual dispute the statute of limitations was expired on the breach-of-contract action under MCL 600.5807(9) when the complaint was filed, the trial court erred by failing to grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).” The court further held that the “trial court also erred by failing to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim after the bench trial.” It concluded that “the evidence supported Harriet should have been aware of a potential claim in July 2007, and she failed to exercise diligence to discover the breach-of-contract claim. Additionally, application of the common-law discovery rule could not save Harriet’s breach-of-contract claim because it was abrogated” in Trentadue.