Court Opinion

ID: 9666145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:06:30.57889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:24.108150
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff was born on December 16, 1952, and was 14 years old when *150he suffered his injuries. At the time his cause of action accrued he had until December 15, 1974, one year after his 21st birthday, to commence the action. MCLA 600.5851(1); MSA 27A.5851(1). On January 1, 1972, the Age of Majority Act became effective. Because plaintiff was 19 years old on that date, the act did not affect the removal of his minority disability. MCLA 722.54; MSA 25.244(54). On March 20, 1972, 1972 PA 87 became effective. Included in that act is a section which provides as follows:
" With respect to a claim accruing before the effective date of * * * [the age of majority act], disability of infancy shall be considered removed as of the effective date of * * * [the age of majority act] as to persons who were at least 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age on January 1, 1972 and shall be considered removed as of the eighteenth birthday of a person who was under 18 years of age on January 1, 1972.” MCLA 600.5851(6); MSA 27A.5851(6).
On January 1, 1972, plaintiff was reassured that he could wait 2-1/2 years to file his complaint. On March 20, 1972, however, plaintiff suddenly had only nine months and eleven days, until December 31, 1972, to commence the action.
While a person may not have a vested right in the specific length of the statute of limitations in effect when his cause of action accrues, a legislative change in that length of time cannot be so radical as to deprive a prospective plaintiff of a reasonable opportunity to enforce his cause of action.1
"It is the essence of a law of limitation that it shall afford a reasonable time within which suit may be *151brought * * * [citations omitted]; and a statute that fails to do this cannot possibly be sustained as a law of limitations, but would be a palpable violation of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.” Price v Hopkin, 13 Mich 318, 324-325 (1865).
While 1972 PA 87 does not alter a limitations period per se, its change in the minority disability status of persons such as the plaintiff has the same effect of cutting off or reducing drastically the previously assured time period in which those persons could commence an action. The Legislature’s reduction of time to commence this action from 2-1/2 years to nine months and eleven days was both arbitrary and unreasonable. Adding to the unfairness is the fact that the plaintiff was twice assured that he could wait until his 22nd birthday to bring suit; under the statutes in effect when his cause of action accrued and under the saving clause in the Age of Majority Act. Then an obscure amendment to the latter act was passed arbitrarily voiding the previous assurances.
I would hold that 1972 PA 87 is invalid as violative of the due process guarantees of the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

 See 51 Am Jur 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 28, p 613.