So now you're agreeing with the interpretation of the eavesdropping statute? If you record your own conversation, it's not the conversation of others?
And the original trial court agreed with you. However, your attempt to reconstruct the statute seems less compelling to me than position taken by the Court of Appeals - yours requires ignoring the stated purpose of the statute and eliding from the interpretation the references to security deposits that support the position ultimately adopted by the Court of Appeals. It is reasonable in context to interpret "All claimed damages" as "all damages claimed against the security deposit", even before considering the precedent relied upon by the court in relation to the statutory modification of periods of limitation. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the legislature would treat differently a circumstance where the landlord was holding onto somebody else's money, versus where the landlord was not. I would be more sympathetic to your argument if the landlord in the case we're discussing held a security deposit.Quoting jk
Your comment on MCL 554.613 reflects more bad drafting, and it becomes necessary to read into the language an effective stay of the 45 day rule once litigation has been commenced. An argument can be made (and has been by the Michigan Supreme Court) that it's not the court's job to fix legislative mistakes of this type, although I'm not sure how diligently they adhere to that principle, and I haven't tried to determine if that particular tension has actually been litigated.



