Background
Allegan County foreclosed on properties belonging to Denise Thompson and Gary and Josette Day to satisfy delinquent property taxes, sold the properties, and retained proceeds exceeding the tax debts. Thompson and the Days were unnamed members of the plaintiff class in Wayside Church v. County of Van Buren, a 2014 Section 1983 action alleging that Michigan counties violated the Takings Clause by retaining surplus foreclosure proceeds. Allegan County was an unnamed member of the putative defendant class.
Wayside was dismissed in 2015, reopened in 2019 based on intervening precedent, and later proceeded against individually named counties. Thompson and the Days opted out of the class settlement in July 2023 and filed their own actions against Allegan County in March 2024. The district court dismissed their federal claims as untimely, reasoning that tolling did not continue during the period between Wayside’s dismissal and reopening and did not apply to Allegan County before it became a named defendant in 2023. Sherry Cunningham, an original plaintiff, was dismissed from the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit vacated the dismissal. Because Section 1983 borrows state limitations periods, Michigan tolling law governed unless inconsistent with federal policy. Under Michigan Court Rule 3.501(F)(3), the 2019 order reopening Wayside superseded the earlier dismissal, so any class-action tolling operated continuously from Wayside’s commencement until Thompson and the Days opted out. The district court therefore erred by treating the intervening dismissal period as time counted against the limitations period.
The court predicted that Michigan would permit tolling for claims against an unnamed member of a putative defendant class only if that defendant had sufficient notice—meaning general awareness of the claims and parties it would face. Because Wayside’s defendant class was never certified and the record did not establish whether Allegan County had notice before it was formally named in 2023, the notice issue was unclear and potentially dispositive. The court remanded for the district court to develop the record and determine whether Allegan County had the notice required for tolling.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan tolling rules, rather than federal tolling rules, govern the timeliness of these Section 1983 claims.
- The dismissal and later reopening of Wayside did not interrupt otherwise applicable class-action tolling under Michigan Court Rule 3.501(F)(3).
- Tolling against an unnamed putative defendant-class member depends on whether that defendant had adequate notice of the claims and potential parties.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the individual claims of former Wayside class members unless the district court finds that Allegan County lacked timely notice. It also clarifies that reopening a class action can make Michigan tolling continuous despite an earlier dismissal.
For Section 1983 litigants proceeding through class actions, the ruling highlights the importance of state tolling doctrine and of evidence showing when an unnamed putative class defendant became generally aware of the litigation.