By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
An individual’s claim under the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act does not survive their death, the Court of Claims ruled recently, preventing a former prisoner’s estate from collecting compensation.
Judge Sima Patel on August 29, in an order for Edwards v. Michigan (COC Docket No. 23-000007), granted the state’s motion for summary disposition when plaintiff Joshun Edwards’s estate attempted to take over his claim.
The case involved three plaintiffs who claimed the trial court erred by denying motions for relief from judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, which was also deemed an error by the Michigan Supreme Court when it heard the case and reversed the appellate court on July 27, 2022. On remand for a new trial, the Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the charges on December 22, 2022.
The trio’s attorneys asked the court for damages awards to the tune of $674,538 for plaintiff Joshun Edwards; $651,935 for plaintiff Dartanian Edwards; and $676,182 for plaintiff C’Quan Hinton.
Hinton and Dartanian Edwards reached a stipulation with the state for an order of expungement in their matters, and their cases were voluntarily dismissed once orders expungement were issued in June.
But Joshun Edwards’s death left a legal hurdle to cross for the court, and Patel was asked to decide whether WICA claims survived a claimant’s death.
Patel in an order granting the state’s motion for summary disposition said they did not.
“The plain language of MCL 691.1752(c) requires this court to conclude that the plaintiff in a WICA action must be the former prisoner who was wrongfully imprisoned,” Patel wrote. “According to the plain language of the statute, neither Edwards’s estate nor the personal representative may be substituted as the ‘plaintiff’ in this action.”
Patel further stated that the verb “make” in the statute was not limited to the initiation of a claim, and instead encompassed the entire proceeding through disposition, showing a legislative intent to bar estates from making or taking over claims.
“By expressly excluding the only entities and persons who could continue a lawsuit following the wrongfully imprisoned person’s death – i.e., the individual’s estate, personal representative, or heirs – from the definition of ‘plaintiff,’ the Legislature made clear that the WICA ‘plaintiff’ must be the ‘individual making the claim’ from initiation through disposition,” Patel wrote. “If ‘individual making a claim’ simply meant ‘individual filing a complaint,’ there would be no need to exclude an individual’s estate, personal representative, and heirs from the definition of plaintiff.”
Gongwer News Service
An individual’s claim under the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act does not survive their death, the Court of Claims ruled recently, preventing a former prisoner’s estate from collecting compensation.
Judge Sima Patel on August 29, in an order for Edwards v. Michigan (COC Docket No. 23-000007), granted the state’s motion for summary disposition when plaintiff Joshun Edwards’s estate attempted to take over his claim.
The case involved three plaintiffs who claimed the trial court erred by denying motions for relief from judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, which was also deemed an error by the Michigan Supreme Court when it heard the case and reversed the appellate court on July 27, 2022. On remand for a new trial, the Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the charges on December 22, 2022.
The trio’s attorneys asked the court for damages awards to the tune of $674,538 for plaintiff Joshun Edwards; $651,935 for plaintiff Dartanian Edwards; and $676,182 for plaintiff C’Quan Hinton.
Hinton and Dartanian Edwards reached a stipulation with the state for an order of expungement in their matters, and their cases were voluntarily dismissed once orders expungement were issued in June.
But Joshun Edwards’s death left a legal hurdle to cross for the court, and Patel was asked to decide whether WICA claims survived a claimant’s death.
Patel in an order granting the state’s motion for summary disposition said they did not.
“The plain language of MCL 691.1752(c) requires this court to conclude that the plaintiff in a WICA action must be the former prisoner who was wrongfully imprisoned,” Patel wrote. “According to the plain language of the statute, neither Edwards’s estate nor the personal representative may be substituted as the ‘plaintiff’ in this action.”
Patel further stated that the verb “make” in the statute was not limited to the initiation of a claim, and instead encompassed the entire proceeding through disposition, showing a legislative intent to bar estates from making or taking over claims.
“By expressly excluding the only entities and persons who could continue a lawsuit following the wrongfully imprisoned person’s death – i.e., the individual’s estate, personal representative, or heirs – from the definition of ‘plaintiff,’ the Legislature made clear that the WICA ‘plaintiff’ must be the ‘individual making the claim’ from initiation through disposition,” Patel wrote. “If ‘individual making a claim’ simply meant ‘individual filing a complaint,’ there would be no need to exclude an individual’s estate, personal representative, and heirs from the definition of plaintiff.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
