e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86103
Opinion Date : 07/14/2026
e-Journal Date : 07/15/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : MI v. Grace Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids
Practice Area(s) : Litigation Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Lievense, Redford, and Wallace
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Civil sexual abuse claims; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5851b(1)(a); Criminal sexual conduct against a minor; Discovery rule; MCL 600.5851b(1)(b); Minor tolling; MCL 600.5851; Retroactivity; Active claims; McLain v Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing; LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group, LLC; People v Russo

Summary

The court held that plaintiff’s civil sexual-abuse claims were timely because MCL 600.5851b(1)(a) applies to claims that were still active when the statute was enacted. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused as a young child in 2006 and 2007 by a church deacon and another child on a mission trip, recovered suppressed memories in 2020, and filed suit in 2024 when she was about 21. The trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary disposition, relying on McLain to conclude plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court erred by treating McLain as controlling because that case involved subsection (1)(b)’s discovery rule and claims that had already expired, while plaintiff relied on subsection (1)(a) and her claims were still active in 2018. The court reasoned that McLain was “not dispositive here” because plaintiff was not “seeking to ‘resuscitate’ or ‘revive’ already-lapsed claims[.]” The court next held that subsection (1)(a) extended the limitations period to age 28 for active claims. It noted that McLain described subsection (1)(a) as “a straightforward extension of the statute of limitations,” and concluded the statute “did not create a new cause of action” but only enlarged the time to file. Applying LaFontaine, the court reasoned defendants had “no vested rights in a statute of limitations defense” because plaintiff’s claims had not expired when the statute was enacted. It also found support in Russo, explaining that a revised limitations period may apply to conduct predating enactment when the prior limitations period had not yet run. The court concluded the statute’s purpose was “to broaden child sexual abuse victims’ access to civil remedies[.]” Reversed and remanded.

Full PDF Opinion