Conditions attached to the conveyance of land; Compliance with MCL 600.6431(1); Pike v Northern MI Univ; Progress MI v Attorney Gen; When the claim accrued; Mootness; Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB)

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 10/7/24.] Holding that the Court of Claims erred as a matter of law by concluding that the plaintiff-city’s action was not barred by the failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1), the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Claims and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendants. The case arose from a dispute over the use of property that was conveyed to the city by the state with conditions attached. Defendants first argued “that the city’s declaratory judgment claim should have been dismissed because the city failed to file a written notice or claim within one year of accrual as required by MCL 600.6431(1).” The court held that the “claim seeking a declaratory judgment was essentially one against the state, and MCL 600.6431(1) applies.” Thus, the court concluded that “contrary to the city’s argument, Progress MI does not stand for the general proposition that MCL 600.6431 never applies if the Attorney General, or another state officer or employee is named as a party.” The relevant question was “instead whether the suit is against the state official in his or her official capacity such that it is a suit against the official’s office.” Here, the case was “clearly against the offices of the Attorney General and the director of the DTMB rather than the individuals occupying those offices and is thus actually a suit against the state itself.” The next issue was when the city’s claim accrued. The parties’ dispute fundamentally concerned “whether the city’s proposed uses for the property fall within the scope of permissible ‘public purposes’ as that term is used in the public act governing the parties’ respective rights relative to the property.” The court held that because “the city’s claim accrued in [3/21] and it failed to timely file its notice or claim within one year as required by MCL 600.6431(1), the city’s claim must be dismissed.” The court concluded that because “the city’s claim must be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431(1),” it was unnecessary to decide whether the “claim was also barred by the statutory limitations period in either MCL 600.6452(1) or MCL 600.5801(4) because” the issue was moot.