Michigan Senate Bill SB0259

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/23/25
• Refer: 4/23/25
• Report Pass: 5/6/25
• Refer: 5/6/25
• Report Pass: 5/7/25
• Engrossed: 5/20/25
• Refer: 5/20/25

Caption

Civil procedure: statute of limitations; statute of limitations for criminal sexual conduct violations; revise statute of limitations and notice requirements for actions against state government. Amends sec. 6452 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.6452). TIE BAR WITH: SB 258'25, SB 257'25

Summary

SB 259 amends Michigan’s Court of Claims statute of limitations for claims against the state. Under current law, most claims against the state must be filed within three years after the claim accrues. This bill keeps that general three-year rule in place, but adds an explicit exception so the limitation period does not apply to claims for wrongful imprisonment compensation and to claims covered by section 5851b of the Revised Judicature Act. The bill also states that the amendment applies retroactively to actions pending on the effective date and to actions brought under section 5851b(4). In addition, the bill is tie-barred to SB 257 and SB 258, meaning it would not take effect unless those companion bills are also enacted. Overall, the measure is part of a broader package revising limitation periods and notice requirements for certain actions against state government, including criminal sexual conduct-related claims.

Impact

SB 259 would modify MCL 600.6452 in the Revised Judicature Act by carving out specific claims from the general three-year filing deadline for suits against the state in the Court of Claims. The practical effect is to preserve or expand access to relief for people pursuing wrongful imprisonment compensation and claims governed by section 5851b, while leaving the general limitations framework intact for other state claims. Because it applies retroactively to pending actions, the bill could affect cases already in progress when it takes effect.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the Senate. It was reported favorably without amendment in committee by a 6-0 vote and then passed the Senate on third reading by a 25-9 vote. That pattern suggests broad support, though not unanimous, for the underlying policy changes.

Contention

The main point of contention is the scope of exceptions to the state’s limitations period and whether those exceptions should apply retroactively. Supporters likely view the bill as a needed correction to allow certain claimants, especially those seeking wrongful imprisonment compensation or relief under section 5851b, to have their claims heard. Opponents may be concerned about expanding state liability, reopening older claims, or altering settled limitations rules for actions against government. The tie-bar to SB 257 and SB 258 also indicates the package is intended to move together, which can create procedural or policy objections if any companion bill is disputed.