KLIDA v. Braman

¶1 (concurring). Because I believe that the Court of Appeals reached the right result, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to point out that the Court of Appeals, in my judgment, erroneously held that § 5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5851(1), is “ambiguous.” To the contrary, the RJA clearly states that a minor shall have one year after the disability is removed to “bring an action under this act,” and a breach of contract action is clearly an action brought under the RJA. A statute is not “ambiguous” merely because a term or phrase therein is subject to multiple definitions or understandings. See Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 (2004). A clear understanding of what is and what is not “ambiguous” is an element in minimizing the exercise of discretionary and standardless judicial power.