Opinion ID: 1708933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: definition of the class and representatives of the class

Text: The plaintiffs argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it defined the class by reference to the three-year statute of limitations which governs actions to recover for injuries to persons and property (MCL 600.5805[7]; MSA 27A.5805[7]), rather than the six-year statute of limitations which governs all other personal actions (MCL 600.5813; MSA 27A.5813). [10] Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the claims for statutory overcharges do not involve injuries to persons or property, but instead are claims for pecuniary loss. Plaintiffs' reliance on this distinction is misplaced. Pecuniary losses are an element of damages that may flow from an injury to persons or property or breach of contract. The suffering of pecuniary damages does not determine the applicable statute of limitations. At the time this action was commenced, MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 provided: No person may bring or maintain any action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action within the periods of time prescribed by this section. (1) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions charging assault, battery, and false imprisonment. (2) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions charging malicious prosecution. (3) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions charging malpractice. (4) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions against sheriffs charging misconduct or neglect of office by themselves or their deputies. (5) The period of limitations is 2 years after the expiration of the year for which a constable was elected for actions based on his negligence or misconduct as constable. (6) The period of limitations is 1 year for actions charging libel or slander. (7) The period of limitations is 3 years for all other actions to recover damages for injuries to persons and property. Section 5813 provides: All other personal actions shall be commenced within the period of 6 years after the claims accrue and not afterwards unless a different period is stated in the statutes. The present case does not involve an injury to person or property within the meaning of § 5805(7). That statute applies to traditional, primarily common-law, torts. See, e.g., Rhule v Armstrong, 384 Mich 709; 187 NW2d 223 (1971); Coates v Milner Hotels, Inc, 311 Mich 233; 18 NW2d 389 (1945). The injury complained of by these plaintiffs, unlike those injuries to which this three-year limitation has been applied, is not a traditional tort. Accordingly, the residual six-year statute of limitations governing all other personal actions, § 5813, applies to the present case. See, e.g., Metzen v Dep't of Revenue, 310 Mich 622; 17 NW2d 860 (1945); Walper v Knowles, 295 Mich 687; 295 NW 363 (1940). The defendants assert that Charles Holt may not represent the class because he is not a member of it. We disagree. The facts indicate that Mr. Holt purchased a bond on February 22, 1970. This bond was revoked on February 23, 1970. This action was filed in November, 1974. Any cause of action Mr. Holt may have is subject to the six-year statute of limitation. MCL 600.5813; MSA 27A.5813. The defendants assert that Barbara Cartwright may not represent the class regarding Count II (illegal taking of collateral) because at the time she filed her motion to intervene, her collateral had been returned to her. The return of the collateral to plaintiff Cartwright would not preclude an action for damages during the time the collateral was illegally held ( e.g., interest). We hold, however, that Barbara Cartwright may not represent a class regarding the illegal taking of collateral because in Part V of this opinion we determine that MCL 750.167b(3); MSA 28.364(2)(3) was not intended to prohibit a bondsman from taking collateral security. Therefore, on remand, there is no cause of action regarding this issue. The defendants challenge Barbara Cartwright's right to represent the class regarding Count III (deprivation of due process during bond revocation). Plaintiff Cartwright has not alleged that she has ever had a bond revoked or suffered an injury from a bond being revoked, and so does not have an individual cause of action for the damages being sought. She may not represent the class seeking damages for unconstitutional revocation of a bail bond because she is not a member of the class. See GCR 1963, 208.1; Grigg v Michigan National Bank, 405 Mich 148, 167, 170; 274 NW2d 752 (1979). The plaintiff alleged that she feared the defendant would revoke the bond she purchased for Buford Miller. The general rule is that one person may not raise the denial of another person's constitutional rights. Mary v Lewis, 399 Mich 401, 416; 249 NW2d 102 (1976). We are satisfied that under the facts of this case there is no reason to digress from the general rule. At the time Barbara Cartwright signed her motion to intervene on March 31, 1975, Buford Miller was no longer subject to the bond, his case having been resolved in the Recorder's Court on November 29, 1974. Apparently, the defendants never revoked Miller's bond while he was subject to it. The defendants have not challenged Barbara Cartwright's right to represent the class regarding Count I (statutory overcharges). We affirm the determination of the Court of Appeals that she may represent the class regarding this issue. The defendants also challenge the right of Edward Attee to represent the class. The pertinent facts indicate that Willie Harris purchased the bond which was posted on Mr. Attee's behalf. Mr. Harris allegedly paid fees in excess of the statutory maximum. The trial court included within the class [a]ll those for whom the defendants posted bond in return for fees and collateral in excess of ten (10%) percent of the face value of the bond posted within six years from the date of filing of the complaint herein. (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals included within the class all persons for whom a bond was purchased from defendants within three years prior to the filing of the complaint, or subsequent thereto, and for which purchase defendants charged fees exceeding 10% of the bond's face value. (Emphasis added.) This was error. In order to recover damages for a violation of a statutory duty, the plaintiff must belong to the class for whose protection the law was passed and must suffer an injury the statute was designed to prevent, Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp, 239 Mich 318, 326-328; 214 NW 241 (1927). The injury that has been alleged in this case is the charge of a fee in excess of the statutory maximum. Only persons who have paid such a fee are entitled to bring an action to recover the excessive charge. The persons for whom the bond was purchased have suffered no damage because of the excessive fee. We, therefore, redefine the class to exclude those persons for whom the bond was purchased absent a showing that such person directly or indirectly paid the fee. We hold that Mr. Attee is not a member of the class because he has not established that he suffered the injury resulting from the allegedly excessive fee paid by Willie Harris. On appeal to this Court, defendants for the first time argue that Attee may not claim the protection of Michigan law because the contract to post bond was performed in New York and thus New York law governs. Without the benefit of lower court discussion, we decline to consider this argument. The question remains whether Mr. Attee may represent the class on any other issue. He has not alleged that he gave the defendants any collateral security, so he may not raise that issue. Mr. Attee has alleged that he believed that the defendants would revoke his bond because he could not pay the second-year premium. Mr. Attee filed his motion to intervene on April 15, 1975. The premium for the second-year premium was due on April 16, 1975. Mr. Attee has not shown that the bond was revoked by the defendants. He is no longer subject to the bond. Constitutional questions are not dealt with hypothetically or in the abstract. We conclude that Mr. Attee did not show that he had been deprived of due process because of a bond revocation or that he was in immediate danger of such injury. He merely showed that his bond was in danger of lapsing for nonpayment of the second-year premium. Consequently, Mr. Attee did not have standing to contest the constitutionality of the bond-revocation statute. We hold, therefore, that Mr. Attee is not a proper plaintiff in this action and may not represent the class. To summarize, we have found that Barbara Cartwright and Charles Holt are the only proper plaintiffs in this action. They have a cause of action for fees paid to purchase a bail bond from the defendants which exceed the statutory maximum. Because of this and our other findings, we necessarily redefine the class as follows: All those who, within six years prior to the filing of the complaint, or subsequent thereto, purchased a bond from the defendants and paid fees exceeding 10% of the bond's face value. Barbara Cartwright and Charles Holt may represent this class.