Case ID: mich_483/html/0891-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Markman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Klida v Braman,
    No. 136535;
    reported 278 Mich App 60.
   Markman, J.

(concurring). Because I believe that the Court of Appeals reached the right result, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to point out that the Court of Appeals, in my judgment, erroneously held that § 5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5851(1), is “ambiguous.” To the contrary, the RJA clearly states that a minor shall have one year after the disability is removed to “bring an action under this act,” and a breach of contract action is clearly an action brought under the RJA. A statute is not “ambiguous” merely because a term or phrase therein is subject to multiple definitions or understandings. See Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 (2004). A clear understanding of what is and what is not “ambiguous” is an element in minimizing the exercise of discretionary and standardless judicial power.

Corrigan and Young, JJ. We join the statement of Justice Markman.