Court Opinion

ID: 9656362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:47:12.053401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.072424
License: Public Domain

*787Cynar, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the determination of the majority that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. I think that the trial court was correct in applying the doctrine of relation back to the reappointment of plaintiffs as coadministrators of the estates of the decedents.
The trial court found that there was no bad faith in bringing the instant suit, nor was there any prejudice to defendants. I would find, as did the trial court, that Castle v Lockwood-MacDonald Hospital, 40 Mich App 597; 199 NW2d 252 (1972), provides ample authority to allow the application of the doctrine of relation back in the instant case. While it is true that Castle presents a stronger case than the one at bar, the instant case satisfies the substantive requirements for allowing the relation back. Suit was filed against defendants before the period of limitation had run, thereby putting defendants on notice that they would have to defend against the claims. Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of the estates. The trial court found that plaintiffs did not act in bad faith, and the only defect in plaintiffs’ action was the fact that they had ceased being the coadministrators of the estates by reason of the closing of those estates. Castle acknowledges that relation back has been applied where the parties were not appointed until after the period of limitation had run. Id., 603. The instant case is one where a valid claim should not be defeated by legal technicalities. Id., 604.
I also find inappropriate the majority’s conclusion that the reopening of an estate is not merely a technicality. It may or may not be, depending on the circumstances, and the majority’s cited authority appears neutral on the question.
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling.