Opinion ID: 831187
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: positive law

Text: The preferred practice is to follow the lead of the institution best suited to make public policy for the state. Accordingly, I begin with the positive law enacted by the Legislature to determine whether public policy supports the change in the common law sought by defendant. The Legislature has affirmatively acted to protect and preserve minors' property interests. [57] With respect to a minor's cause of action, the Legislature has taken two significant steps. Pursuant to MCL 600.5851, the minority tolling provision, the period of limitations for a cause of action that accrued during minority is tolled. The minor is permitted to bring his cause of action within one year of reaching majority. [58] Thus, the Legislature has acted to preserve a minor's ability to pursue and control the minor's own claim. Furthermore, although a parent as next friend of his child may settle a claim with the approval of the court, [59] the parent's authority to receive settlement proceeds on the child's behalf is strictly limited. Under MCL 700.5102, a guardian or person with the care and custody of a minor may receive no more than $5,000 each year on that minor's behalf, [60] and an individual receiving money or property for a minor is obligated to apply the money to the minor's support and education, but shall not pay himself or herself except by way of reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for goods and services necessary for the minor's support. An excess amount shall be preserved for the minor's future support and education. A balance not used for those purposes and property received for the minor shall be turned over to the minor when majority is attained. [61] Notably, the Court of Appeals has held that MCL 700.5102 does not authorize a parent to settle his child's tort claims. [62] Furthermore, in recognizing these legislative policy choices, this Court has provided by court rule that all settlements in favor of minors for payments of less than $5,000 in a single year are controlled by MCL 700.5102 and all greater settlements require the appointment of a conservator. [63] These statutes evince a public policy firmly at odds with the autonomous parental control over a minor's property rights that defendant asserts. The Legislature has consistently acted to preserve a minor's property interest in his tort claims, and nothing in Michigan's positive law indicates a legislative intent to abrogate the common law or extend a parent's authority. Accordingly, positive law does not provide an anchor for altering the common law rules.