- 1 -

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

CHARNITA SADLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

March 6, 2018

v No. 336117

Wayne Circuit Court

CITY OF DETROIT, LC No. 16-010827-NO

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and BORRELLO and SWARTZLE, JJ.

GLEICHER, J. (concurring).

The majority holds that the outcome in this case is dictated by this Court’s recent 

decision in Wigfall v Detroit, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (Docket No. 333448, issued 

October 10, 2017), lv pending, and I concur. Were I writing on a blank slate, however, I would 

hold that service of Sadler’s notice on the City of Detroit Law Department sufficed. 

Sadler timely informed the city of Detroit of her claim. She used certified mail to send 

her notice within the applicable time period, and the city received it. The city then assigned an 

adjuster to gather more information. The adjuster sent a letter to counsel acknowledging receipt 

of the notice and seeking signed medical releases. In the fullest sense, notice was achieved. The 

purpose of the notice statute was fulfilled. 

But as the majority holds, Wigfall dictates the result in this case. In Wigfall, this Court 

invoked the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 

219; 731 NW2d 41 (2007), which held that the “straightforward, clear, unambiguous” language 

of MCL 691.1404 “must be enforced as written.” This Court emphasized that “ ‘no judicially 

created saving construction is permitted to avoid a clear statutory mandate.’ ” Wigfall, slip op at 

3, quoting McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730, 733; 822 NW2d 747 (2012).

But neither Rowland nor Wigfall mention another statutory text, MCL 600.2301. That 

statute addresses errors in the proceedings “which do not affect the substantial rights of the 

parties.” It provides:

The court in which any action or proceeding is pending, has power to amend any 

process, pleading or proceeding in such action or proceeding, either in form or 

substance, for the furtherance of justice, on such terms as are just, at any time 

before judgment rendered therein. The court at every stage of the action or 
- 2 -

proceeding shall disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not 

affect the substantial rights of the parties. [Id.]

I would hold that MCL 600.2301 is a “clear statutory mandate” that “must be enforced as 

written.” It compels courts to disregard otherwise inconsequential errors unless the errors affect

“the substantial rights of the parties.” This law expresses the intent of our Legislature that 

trifling technicalities precipitating no prejudice should not stand in the way of allowing a litigant 

to have her day in court. In other words, access to the courts is more important than enforcing 

formalities when a “process” mistake that causes no harm.

Here, the city of Detroit knew exactly what it needed to know to defend against Sadler’s 

claim. The notion that serving the initial notice on the mayor, the city clerk, or the city attorney 

somehow would have aided the city’s defense is laughable. If our courts truly revere the text of 

the statutes enacted by our Legislature, the answer to a case like this is simple. MCL 600.2301 

commands that Sadler’s error of process or proceeding must be disregarded because it had no 

effect on the city’s rights. Were it not for this Court’s decision in Wigfall, I would reverse the 

circuit court on that ground.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher