Three-year deadline for slander-of-title claims

Summary#

House Bill 6436 would amend Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act of 1961 and add a section on slander-of-title lawsuits. Its stated goal, reflected in the bill’s title, is to modify the time limit for libel or slander claims. The bill is introduced, not law.

  • The supplied text keeps a one-year limit for libel and slander generally, but says that limit does not apply to slander-of-title claims.
  • For slander-of-title claims involving a recorded false statement about an interest in property, a lawsuit would have to start before three years after the latest of three events: discovery of the recording, the end of a prosecutor’s or law enforcement agency’s investigation, or resolution of a related criminal case.
  • The bill does not set a separate limit measured from the date the statement was recorded.

What it means for you#

  • People bringing slander-of-title claims: Under the bill, the deadline would depend on the latest of the three listed events, rather than the one-year limit that applies to libel and slander generally.
  • People defending those claims: You could face a lawsuit more than three years after the recording if one of the listed events happens later. This is an inference from the bill’s deadline.
  • Other people: The bill text does not directly change other civil-claim deadlines, taxes, or public services.
  • The bill is not yet law, and its passage is uncertain.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.

  • The bill does not set an appropriation, fee, or fine.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current Revised Judicature Act, so I could not verify the bill’s description of current law against the full Act.
  • The bill does not define “slander of title” or “discovered.”
  • It does not explain how the deadline works if there is no investigation or criminal case.
  • The bill text gives no effective date.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that a person may not discover a recorded statement, or see an investigation or related criminal case end, within one year.
  • Giving three years after the latest listed event could provide more time to bring a claim when those events happen late.

Case against#

  • The bill sets no limit measured from the date of recording. If a listed event happens much later, a claim could remain possible long after the recording.
  • The deadline could depend on when an investigation ends or a criminal case is resolved—events that may be outside the control of the people bringing or defending a lawsuit.
  • The bill does not explain how to set the deadline when one or more of those events do not occur.