Opinion ID: 839228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: plaintiff waived the scra's mandatory tolling provision

Text: Michigan generally follows the raise or waive rule of appellate review. [19] Under our jurisprudence, a litigant must preserve an issue for appellate review by raising it in the trial court. [20] Although this Court has inherent power to review an issue not raised in the trial court to prevent a miscarriage of justice, [21] generally a failure to timely raise an issue waives review of that issue on appeal. [22] The principal rationale for the rule is based in the nature of the adversarial process and judicial efficiency. By limiting appellate review to those issues raised and argued in the trial court, and holding all other issues waived, appellate courts require litigants to raise and frame their arguments at a time when their opponents may respond to them factually. [23] This practice also avoids the untenable result of permitting an unsuccessful litigant to prevail by avoiding its tactical decisions that proved unsuccessful. [24] Generally, a party may not remain silent in the trial court, only to prevail on an issue that was not called to the trial court's attention. [25] Trial courts are not the research assistants of the litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution of their dispute. Plaintiff's cause of action accrued on May 11, 2001, and plaintiff filed the instant complaint on October 21, 2004. Without tolling, the period of limitations for plaintiff's claim expired on May 12, 2004. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, arguing that plaintiff had filed his complaint after the period of limitations expired. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not raise the tolling provision of the SCRA in response to defendant's motion. Thus, under our raise or waive rule, it is undisputed that plaintiff waived the tolling provision. It could be argued that the tolling provision cannot be waived because it is mandatory. However, as discussed, Congress did not intend to prohibit waiver by a nonservicemember. Moreover, our raise or waive rule permits waiver of otherwise mandatory statutory provisions. For example, our statute of limitations provision is mandatory, just like the tolling provision of the SCRA: A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the period of time prescribed by this section.[ [26] ] It has long been the rule in Michigan that a defendant may waive a statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in the trial court. [27] Under the Michigan Court Rules, a defendant waives a statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in his first responsive pleading. [28] The defendant may cure his failure to raise the defense in his first responsive pleading by amending the pleading, [29] but the defendant must, in any event, raise the defense in the trial court. We hold that a tolling provision may be waived just as a statute of limitations defense may be waived. Consistent with the rule against appellate review of issues not raised in the trial court, a plaintiff may waive the tolling of the period of limitations by failing to raise it in the trial court. [30] We are aware of decisions in other courts that reach the opposite conclusion, [31] but those decisions are not binding, and we do not find them persuasive. [32] Plaintiff failed to raise his SCRA argument in the trial court, but now seeks belatedly to use it as a sword to defeat dismissal. This would have the perverse effect of rendering the servicemember amenable to suit when the tolling provision was never invoked in the trial court. Therefore, we hold that plaintiff has waived the tolling provision of the SCRA, and the Court of Appeals did not err by not addressing the merits of plaintiff's SCRA argument.