 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guerra6/11/2002
ension of time will not disadvantage the defendant as a result of his unawareness of the need to preserve evidence and prepare a defense. Thus, the tolling statute takes away any harshness that might occur if the plaintiff, in good faith, commenced a suit without having the merits adjudicated and later learned that because of that mistake the statute had run. At the same time, it protects the defendant from the very evils that the statute of limitations is intended to do away with.
Subsections 1 and 2 of the tolling statute allow a lawsuit to go forward notwithstanding the statute of limitations when the defendant has already received notice of the allegations against him as a result of the prior lawsuit. [Mair, supra, 419 Mich at 83.]
Contrary to the majority, I do not believe that this holding is contrary to the precedential decisions in Holmes, supra at 714 and Scarsella, supra at 549-552. It does not appear that this argument was raised in either Holmes or Scarsella. This Court generally addresses only those issues properly raised in an appellant's statement of questions involved. FMB-First Michigan Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich App 711, 718; 591 NW2d 676 (1998); Check Reporting Services, Inc v Michigan National Bank-Lansing, 191 Mich App 614, 628; 478 NW2d 893 (1991). And, our Supreme Court only reviews issues raised in the appellant's application for leave to appeal. MCR 7.302(F)(4)(a).
I would reverse.
Harold Hood
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|