Court Opinion

ID: 9572056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:37:55.119211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:26.552359
License: Public Domain

White, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the conclusion that the negligence claim against Windemere Apartments is time-barred. I also concur in the conclusion that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to add a nuisance claim and improperly dismissed plaintiff’s trespass claims.
I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s resolution of plaintiff’s negligence claims against The Douglas Company and Burlington Construction. The majority concludes that plaintiff’s claims against Douglas and Burlington are not time-barred because the six-year period of limitation under MCL 600.5839; *349MSA 27A.5839 applies, and not the three-year period of limitation under MCL 600.5805(8), MSA 27A.5805(8); MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827. Under the circumstances, where plaintiff did not assert the applicability of the six-year period of limitation in the circuit court and does not assert its applicability on appeal, so that defendants have never addressed the applicability of the statute, I would not reach the question at this time. While this Court may choose to raise this issue of law on its own, it should give defendants an opportunity to respond, either by requesting additional briefing or remanding the matter to the circuit court.