Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortplaintiffdefendantdamagesstatutetrialstatute of limitations

plaintiffdefendantdamagesstatutetrialpleamotionstatute of limitations

Related Cases

Janiszewski v. Behrmann, 345 Mich. 8, 75 N.W.2d 77

Facts

The action was initiated by the plaintiff on June 30, 1954, seeking recovery for the conversion of personal property that occurred more than three years prior. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants wrongfully converted his property during an execution sale that was not conducted according to statutory requirements. The plaintiff's amended declaration included three counts, all based on the tortious conversion of his property, and he sought damages for the losses incurred as a result of this conversion.

The first is in trespass on the case and alleges that on the 28th of March, 1951, defendant Tallamn obtained a judgment against plaintiff in the common pleas court of the city of Detroit in the sum of $1,500 and costs.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's action for conversion was barred by the statute of limitations, and if so, whether the statute was tolled by fraudulent concealment.

The question presented is whether the prosecution of said action was barred by the statute of limitations relating to actions to recover damages for injury to person or property.

Rule

Under Michigan law, an action for conversion must be brought within three years from the time it accrues, and the statute of limitations is not tolled by fraudulent concealment if the plaintiff is aware of the facts constituting the cause of action.

By the provisions of said statute, C.L.S.1954, § 609.13, subdivision 2, Stat.Ann.1953 Cum.Supp. § 27.605, an action of this character must be brought within three years from the time it accrues.

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claims and determined that the action was indeed one for conversion, which was subject to the three-year statute of limitations. The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the conversion and the circumstances surrounding it, thus the claim of fraudulent concealment did not apply. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had elected to pursue a tort remedy and could not later shift to a contract theory.

The statute of limitations was not tolled by fraudulent concealment of the cause of action. We are in accord with the conclusion of the trial judge that the statute barred the prosecution of the cause of action set forth in the declaration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case, concluding that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The order of the trial court dismissing the case is affirmed.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations.

The trial court, concluding that the action was one to recover damages for injury to property, granted the motions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Shepherd Components, Inc. v. Brice Petrides-Donohue & Associates, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 612

Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 65 USLW 2796

Godwin v. Lindbert, 101 Mich.App. 754, 300 N.W.2d 514

Braverman v. Granger, 303 Mich.App. 587, 844 N.W.2d 485

McCowen v. Pew, 18 Cal.App. 482, 123 P. 354