Whether MCL 567.251a & MCL 567.255 interact to impose a legal duty of postexamination compliance on a holder that is distinct from the annual duty to report & remit abandoned property; The Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the UUPA); Statute of limitations; MCL 567.250(2); Dine Brands Global, Inc v Eubanks (Dine Brands III)

On second remand, the court held “that a distinct legal duty to deliver property arises from a notice-of-examination determination issued by the Treasurer, so the trial court erred when it ruled that the Treasurer was time-barred under MCL 567.250(2) from commencing future enforcement actions against plaintiffs.” Thus, it reversed the trial court’s orders and remanded both cases for entry of summary disposition for the Treasurer. Recently, the Supreme Court held “that an ‘action or proceeding’ includes an examination initiated by the Treasurer” and “that the initiation of an examination by the Treasurer does not toll the statute of limitations.” It remanded these consolidated appeals to the court to consider “whether MCL 567.251a and MCL 567.255 interact to impose a legal duty of postexamination compliance on a holder [of abandoned property] that is distinct from the annual duty to report and remit abandoned property.” The court held that the “resolution of that issue dictates how the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) is applied ‘when a party refuses to voluntarily comply and the Treasurer is forced to commence a postexamination enforcement action.’” It found that the applicable “provisions reflect that the holder has a distinct legal duty to deliver property to the Treasurer as a result of the examination.” It concluded that the “conclusion is fortified by the range of penalties that are available under MCL 567.255. Although our Supreme Court declined to decide whether a distinct legal duty arises from the notice of examination determination, our Supreme Court commented on the statutory range of penalties[.]” The court held that application “of these penalties is not limited to the failure to comply with the annual duty to report and remit abandoned property. The civil penalties may be imposed for, inter alia, a willful failure to ‘perform other duties required under” the UUPA, MCL 567.255(2), and a willful failure to pay or deliver property as required under the UUPA, MCL 567.255(3).” In sum, the court concluded “that a distinct legal duty to deliver property to the Treasurer arises from the notice of examination determination. Therefore, for purposes of filing a postexamination enforcement action, the 5-year or 10-year (depending on the type of transaction) limitation period begins to run on the date of the issuance of the notice of examination determination. Because the notices of examination determination in these cases were issued in 2021, the trial court erred when it concluded that the Treasurer was time-barred under MCL 567.250(2) from commencing a future enforcement action with respect to the property deliverable to the Treasurer from plaintiffs as a result of the respective notices of examination determination.”