Statutes of limitations; Effect of Michigan Supreme Court’s administrative orders (AOs) as to court filing deadlines that excluded days during the COVID-19 state of emergency from the computation of time under MCR 1.108; AO 2020-3; AO 2020-18; Whether the Supreme Court has authority to modify or toll the statute of limitations

The court held that the statute of limitations (SOL) was tolled by the Michigan Supreme Court’s AO 2020-3 and the Supreme Court had constitutional authority to issue AO 2020-3. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and remanded. The court concluded that “under AO 2020-3 and MCR 1.108(1), any day falling during the state of emergency does not count toward determining the last day of a statutory limitations period. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the Supreme Court did not exclude only deadlines that fell during the state of emergency. Rather, it more broadly excluded any day within the state of emergency ‘for purposes of determining the deadline applicable to the commencement of all civil and probate case types under MCR 1.108(1).’” The court noted that its conclusion was supported “by AO 2020-18’s explanation of how to start counting days” after AO 2020-3’s rescission. It demonstrated that “all litigants whose limitations periods had not expired prior to the adoption of AO 2020-3 were entitled to the exclusion of days under AO 2020-3.” Thus, the trial court erred by concluding AO 2020-3 did not apply to this slip and fall case. And applying the AOs here, the court held that plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed. Defendant alternatively argued “AO 2020-3 is ineffective because the Supreme Court has no authority to modify or toll the” SOL. The court found that by “its own terms, AO 2020-3 was modifying the computation of days under MCR 1.108 for purposes of determining filing deadlines, which is plainly a procedural matter. Further, even the normal application of MCR 1.108(1) may result in more time than permitted by the” SOL. The court concluded the “law of counting time favors this approach, i.e., granting more rather than less than time to file than permitted by statute, to ensure that the parties receive the entire amount of time for filing that they are entitled to.” The court determined that “is precisely what the Supreme Court was trying to accomplish with AO 2020-3, which was issued when there were court closings because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the Court was also clearly concerned with limiting in-person interactions and protecting court staff and the public from COVID-19.” The court noted that in “addition to its authority over procedural rules, the Supreme Court has superintending control over all state courts.” As a result, it had authority to manage the courts’ operations during a global pandemic.