Background
Plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging she was sexually abused by a church deacon in 2006 when she was approximately three years old, and by an older child on a church-sponsored mission trip to Guinea in late 2006 to early 2007. She alleged that church leadership was aware of child sexual abuse occurring in the church and on mission trips but failed to prevent it. Plaintiff’s memories of the abuse remained suppressed until September 2020 when, at age 17, she began recovering them through psychotherapy. She filed suit on August 12, 2024, at age 21.
When the abuse occurred, the applicable statute of limitations was three years, extended by the minor tolling provision to when she turned 19 (age 19 being applicable age around 2022). Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because they accrued in 2006–2007 and she did not file until age 21. They relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in McLain v Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing, which held that a discovery rule provision in MCL 600.5851b(1)(b) does not apply retroactively to revive already-expired claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held that MCL 600.5851b(1)(a), enacted in 2018, applies to plaintiff’s claims. That statute extends the statute of limitations for minors who are victims of criminal sexual conduct to age 28. The critical distinction from McLain is that plaintiff’s claims were still active when the statute was enacted in 2018—they had not yet expired. When plaintiff was 15 in 2018, she had until age 19 to file under the prior law, meaning her claims would not become time-barred until approximately 2022.
The court held that MCL 600.5851b(1)(a) is remedial in nature and does not impair vested rights when applied to active claims. Using the LaFontaine retroactivity framework, the court concluded that defendants never acquired a vested right to invoke a statute of limitations defense because the limitations period had not run when the new statute took effect. The statute simply extended an already-existing remedy, making defendants’ defense unavailable during the period when plaintiff’s claim remained viable. This is distinguishable from McLain, where the defendant’s claim had completely expired before the statute was enacted, creating a situation of “reviving” an already-barred claim.
Key Takeaways
- MCL 600.5851b(1)(a) applies retroactively to extend the statute of limitations to age 28 for minors with active civil sexual abuse claims at the time of the statute’s 2018 enactment.
- A defendant does not acquire a vested right to a statute of limitations defense while the plaintiff’s claim remains active; such rights only vest once the limitations period completely expires.
- The distinction between extending an active claim (permissible under retroactivity doctrine) and reviving an already-expired claim (impermissible under McLain) is outcome-determinative.
- Remedial statutes that further existing remedies without creating new causes of action or destroying vested rights may be applied retroactively under Michigan law.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly impacts survivors of childhood sexual abuse in Michigan by clarifying that the 2018 extension of the statute of limitations to age 28 applies not only to abuse occurring after the statute’s enactment, but also to abuse occurring before 2018 if the claims had not yet expired when the statute took effect. For survivors whose abuse occurred years or decades earlier but whose claims were still technically active due to the minor tolling provision, this opens a new window for civil recovery.
The opinion also establishes important retroactivity doctrine by distinguishing between applying new limitations periods to active claims versus reviving barred claims. Courts must carefully analyze whether a claim was time-barred at the moment the new statute took effect. The decision reflects the court’s recognition that statutes extending remedies for child sexual abuse victims serve a remedial purpose—broadening access to justice—that supports retroactive application when doing so does not resurrect truly expired rights.