Government seizure of personal property; Conversion; Mandamus; Notice of a claim against the state; MCL 600.6431; Principle that MCL 600.6431 applies to all claims against the state; Christie v Wayne State Univ; Elia Cos, LLC v University of MI; Retroactivity of Christie; Flamont v Department of Corrs; Landin v Department of Health & Human Servs; Hudson v Department of Corrs (Hudson I & II); Court of Claims jurisdiction; Signature & verification requirements; MCL 600.6431(2)(a)-(d)

The court held that plaintiff’s claims were barred for failure to comply with the notice and verification requirements of MCL 600.6431. Plaintiff sought the return of over $100,000 in cash, electronic devices, marijuana trimming equipment, and other property seized by defendant. He alleged claim and delivery, statutory and common-law conversion, and mandamus. He contended defendant was required to return the property because no forfeiture action was filed, no criminal charges were brought, and statutory deadlines under the forfeiture scheme had expired. The Court of Claims eventually granted defendant’s renewed motion for summary disposition, relying on Christie and Elia. It noted plaintiff’s accrual date was no later than 8/18/21, but he failed to file a verified complaint or verified notice of intent within the statutory one-year window. On appeal, the court found plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431 was fatal to his claim. It rejected his argument that the accrual date was unsettled. Plaintiff “could not maintain an action against the state because he failed, within one year of the claim accrual, to file a written claim or a written notice of an intention to file a claim against the state or its departments or agencies. This claim or notice had to include a statement of the time and place of where the claim occurred, a detailed statement of the nature of the claim and the damages, an identification of the state entity involved with the claim, and the claimant’s signature and verification before an officer authorized to administer oaths. Plaintiff was required to comply with MCL 600.6431 and could not cure any defects during the pendency of the action.” In light of the holding in Hudson II “that the Christie decision is given full retroactive effect,” the Court of Claims did not err in granting defendant summary disposition “after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction.” Affirmed.