Mitan v. Campbell

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Citation474 Mich. 21,706 N.W.2d 420
Docket NumberDocket No. 126451.
PartiesKenneth MITAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maura CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date06 December 2005

Mitan & Associates, P.C. (by Keith J. Mitan), West Bloomfield, MI, for the plaintiff.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Patrick J. O'Brien and Mark E. Donnelly, Assistant Attorneys General, Lansing, MI, for the defendant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The question before us in this defamation case is whether the period of limitations1 runs from the date of the alleged defamatory statement made by defendant or the date the statement was republished by a third party. We conclude that the limitations period ran from the date of the original alleged defamatory statement. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court's judgment of summary disposition.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Defendant was the public relations director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. On February 22, 2000, she was interviewed by a reporter from WXYZ-TV regarding employment claims made by plaintiff's employees. During the interview, defendant stated that plaintiff was a "bad egg," a statement that plaintiff claims was defamatory. The statement was broadcast by WXYZ-TV on February 25, 2000. Plaintiff filed a defamation complaint on February 26, 2001 (February 25 was a Sunday), more than a year after defendant made her statement but within a year from the date it was republished by WXYZ-TV.

The limitations period for a defamation claim is one year. M.C.L. § 600.5805(9). The circuit court granted defendant summary disposition based on the statute of limitations, MCR 2.116(C)(7), ruling that defendant's statement to the reporter started the limitations period running, and that defendant could not be held responsible for the republication by WXYZ-TV. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.2 It concluded that defendant could be liable on the basis of the republication because it was plausible that the broadcast was the natural, and possibly intended, result of the interview. The Court found this was a factual issue to be considered on remand.

Defendant applied for leave to appeal to this Court. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1).3

II. Standard of Review

We review a summary disposition ruling de novo to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 118, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Questions of statutory construction are also reviewed de novo. Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 466 Mich. 57, 62, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002). In construing a statute, courts are to effect the intent of the Legislature, and if a statute is clear and unambiguous it should be enforced as written. Id. at 63, 642 N.W.2d 663.

III. Analysis

The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by publication. Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek (After Remand), 440 Mich. 238, 251, 487 N.W.2d 205 (1992) (libel); Ledl v. Quik Pik Food Stores, Inc., 133 Mich.App. 583, 589, 349 N.W.2d 529 (1984) (defamation).

The one-year limitations period for defamation claims is found in M.C.L. § 600.5805(1), (9):

(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.

* * *

(9) The period of limitations is 1 year for an action charging libel or slander. [Emphasis added.]

A defamation claim accrues when "the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results." M.C.L. § 600.5827.

M.C.L. § 600.5805(1) and (9) are clear and unambiguous. Our Legislature has clearly provided that a defamation claim must be filed within one year from the date the claim first accrued. The claim first accrued when the defamatory statement was made on February 22, 2000. The statute does not contemplate extending the accrual of the claim on the basis of republication, regardless of whether the republication was intended by the speaker.4 Because plaintiff filed suit against defendant more than a year after his claim first accrued, his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

The plain language of M.C.L. § 600.5805 is inconsistent with plaintiff's claim that a third party's expected republication of a defamatory statement affects the running of the limitations period for the initial statement. The statute provides a relatively short limitations period of one year; there is nothing in the statute suggesting that the period can effectively be lengthened where republication is anticipated. Rather than a rule of first accrual, the reasoning of the Court of Appeals changes the statute to a rule of last accrual. Such reasoning undermines the principles of finality and certainty behind a statute of limitations. See Stephens v. Dixon, 449 Mich. 531, 536 N.W.2d 755 (1995).5

IV. Conclusion

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the circuit court's judgment of summary disposition is reinstated.6

TAYLOR, C.J., and MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, WEAVER, MARILYN J. KELLY, CORRIGAN, YOUNG and MARKMAN, JJ., concur.

1. Currently the statute of limitations is M.C.L. § 600.5805(9). Amendments to M.C.L. § 600.5805 since the alleged defamation occurred...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • Lakin v. Rund, Docket No. 323695.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 1, 2016
    ...statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by publication. [Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24, 706 N.W.2d 420 (2005).]In Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich.App. 723, 727–728, 613 N.W.2d 378 (2000), this Court held th......
  • Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Doe
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 4, 2013
    ...v. Edwards, 230 Mich.App. 607, 619, 584 N.W.2d 632 (1998). 46.Tomkiewicz, 246 Mich.App. at 666–667, 635 N.W.2d 36;Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24, 706 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 47.Rouch, 440 Mich. at 251–252, 487 N.W.2d 205, quoting Locricchio v. Evening News Ass'n., 438 Mich. 84, 118, 476 N.W......
  • Redmond v. Heller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 28, 2020
    ...is a basis for an action, and the statute of limitations runs from the date of each such act). Theresa's reliance on Mitan v. Campbell , 474 Mich. 21, 706 N.W.2d 420 (2005), is misplaced. The Mitan Court addressed a situation where the defendant allegedly defamed the plaintiff during a tele......
  • House of Providence v. Meyers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 5, 2020
    ...as defendants point out, that defamation claims in Michigan are subject to a one-year limitations period, see Mitan v. Campbell , 474 Mich. 21, 706 N.W.2d 420, 422 (2005) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(1), (9) ), and therefore plaintiffs may not base any of their defamation claims on s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT