Interpretation & application of Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA); “Action or proceeding”; MCL 567.250(2); Harmonization; Tolling of the statute of limitations

In these consolidated appeals concerning Michigan’s UUPA, the court held that “an ‘action or proceeding’ includes an examination initiated by the Treasurer.” It further held “that the initiation of an examination by the Treasurer does not toll the statute of limitations.” The first question was “whether an examination conducted by the Treasurer pursuant to MCL 567.251 and MCL 567.251a falls within the meaning of ‘action or proceeding’ under MCL 567.250(2).” The court held that “that although an examination is a ‘proceeding’ for purposes of MCL 567.250(2), the commencement of an examination does not toll the statute of limitations. However, because the limitations period applicable to ‘an action or proceeding’ commenced by the Treasurer ‘with respect to any duty of a holder under this act’ runs from the date ‘the duty arose,’ identification of the specific duty that the Treasurer seeks to enforce is a prerequisite to determining whether the limitations period has run. Plaintiffs each obtained declaratory and prospective injunctive relief preventing the Treasurer from initiating a future action to compel compliance with the results of the examinations at issue on the basis that such an action would be untimely under MCL 567.250(2).” The court found that to “decide whether the nature and scope of the granted prospective relief was proper, it is necessary to determine whether a holder’s obligation to comply with the results of an examination after receiving a ‘notice of examination determination,’ is a separate legal duty from a holder’s annual duty to report and remit abandoned property[.]” The court concluded that this “question was not clearly resolved by the Court of Appeals and has been sparsely briefed in this Court.” Thus, it reversed in part, affirmed in part, and vacated in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and remanded these cases to that Court for resolution of the remaining issue.