A Michigan Ruling Shows How a Statute of Limitations Change Can Save an Old Abuse Claim

Reviewed by Survivor Rights Center · Updated 2026-07-17

What the Case Was About

The lawsuit accuses a Grand Rapids congregation and its national denomination of failing to protect a child from sexual abuse that is alleged to have occurred in the mid-2000s, when the survivor was a preschooler. The suit names the local church and the broader denominational body as defendants, arguing that the institutions bear responsibility for what happened on their property and under their supervision.

A trial court dismissed the case in 2024, ruling that the claim had already expired under the statute of limitations that existed at the time the abuse allegedly occurred. Under Michigan's older rule, survivors generally had to file suit before turning 19. Since the survivor filed well after that birthday, the trial judge concluded the case could not go forward, no matter what the underlying facts were.

The 2018 Law That Changed the Math

In 2018, Michigan lawmakers extended the civil filing deadline for childhood sexual abuse claims from age 19 to age 28, responding to years of research showing that survivors, especially those abused as young children, often take decades to come forward. The extension applied going forward, but a persistent legal question has followed it ever since: does it help survivors whose old deadline had already passed by the time it took effect, or only survivors whose claims were still technically alive?

The appellate panel's answer in this case was specific rather than sweeping. Because the survivor's claim had not yet expired under the old 19-year-old cutoff when the 2018 law took effect, the panel held that the longer, age-28 deadline attached to her claim going forward. In practical terms, the court treated her as someone who was still inside the filing window when the rules changed, not someone trying to revive a claim that had already died.

Why the Distinction Matters Beyond This One Case

This kind of timing question comes up constantly in statute of limitations litigation nationwide, not just in Michigan. When a legislature lengthens a filing deadline, courts routinely have to decide whether the new deadline is a substantive change that only protects future conduct, or a procedural fix that can reach backward to claims still technically pending under the old rule.

For survivors, the practical effect is enormous. Two people abused around the same time, a year apart in age, can end up on opposite sides of a courthouse door depending entirely on which side of a legislative cutoff their birthday happened to fall. Rulings like this one give lawyers and survivors a clearer roadmap for figuring out which side of that line a given claim falls on before they ever get to arguing about what actually happened.

What Happens Next

The case now returns to the circuit court, where it will proceed much like any other civil lawsuit that survived a motion to dismiss: through discovery, depositions, and eventually either a settlement or a trial on the merits. The appellate ruling only restores the survivor's right to be heard; it says nothing about whether the abuse occurred or who, if anyone, is liable for it.

The church has said it is investigating the allegations and has described all abuse as unacceptable. Advocates who track these cases say the ruling is likely to be cited in other pending Michigan lawsuits where the same 2018 extension is in dispute, particularly cases involving survivors who were still legally able to sue when the law changed but had not yet filed.

How to Read a Statute of Limitations Extension If You're a Survivor

Extensions to filing deadlines are common, but whether one actually helps a specific survivor depends on a few key facts. Here is what tends to matter.

1. The date the abuse occurred: Older extensions are sometimes written to apply only to abuse that happened after a certain date, so the timing of the underlying conduct matters.
2. Your age when the deadline changed: As this case shows, whether your claim was still technically alive on the day a new law took effect can decide whether the longer deadline reaches you.
3. Whether the change is retroactive: Some extensions explicitly revive already-expired claims for a limited window; others only extend deadlines that have not yet run out.
4. Which court and state you are in: Every state statute of limitations is different, and appellate courts in different states can read similar language differently.
5. Who the defendant is: Claims against an individual, an employer, or a supervising institution can sometimes run on different clocks even within the same lawsuit.
6. Whether a discovery rule applies: Many states also let a filing clock start when a survivor first connects their harm to the abuse, rather than at the time of the abuse itself.
7. Whether the case has already been dismissed: A prior dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is not always the end of the road, as this reversal shows.

Frequently asked questions

Related