Opinion ID: 848675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendants waived the statute of limitations defense

Text: In the trial court, plaintiff argued that the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations had been waived. I agree. `[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.' People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 762 n. 7, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). It is an equitable doctrine applied judicially to avoid injustice. Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 466 Mich. 57, 76 n. 9, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002) (KELLY, J., dissenting). Waiver may be implied by conduct inconsistent with the intent to assert the right. 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 209, pp. 612-613. The party waiving the right must have actual or constructive knowledge of facts that would create the right. Id., § 202, pp. 607-608. Here, defendants did not respond to plaintiff's notice of intent to sue. Defendants contacted plaintiff only after receiving his complaint. Defendants requested two extensions of the time in which to file their answer. They reserved no rights or defenses. Defendants' answer raised the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations at a time when it was not viable. Plaintiff denied that the defense was applicable. At a pretrial conference, defendants expressed satisfaction with the pleadings. Defendants knew that the notice period had not elapsed. They also knew that plaintiff's complaint was subject to a statute of limitations. Yet they made no mention that the complaint had been filed prematurely. They did not then assert, and have not yet asserted, any prejudice from receiving plaintiff's complaint before the full notice period had elapsed. Defendants induced plaintiff to believe that they had no objection to the timing of his complaint. Defendants, who asked twice to file a late answer, cannot equitably harbor a challenge to plaintiff's early complaint. [9] Plaintiff's claim should not be subject to dismissal, with prejudice or otherwise. I would hold that defendants' actions implied a knowing waiver of any affirmative defense that is based on the premature filing of plaintiff's complaint.