Representative Image (AI-generated)
It also concluded that the 2019 reopening of the class action meant the tolling period could continue rather than simply ending when the case was dismissed in 2015. Because the homeowners brought their claims under federal civil-rights law, but such claims generally borrow the applicable state statute of limitations, judge Amul Thapar, writing for the Sixth Circuit, said Michigan law controls the tolling issue. That matters because, if the Wayside case paused the clock until Thompson and the Days opted out, their individual lawsuits could have been filed within the applicable deadline.
The court found that Michigan’s tolling rules could apply to the Wayside litigation. But the appeals court did not decide that the claims are definitely timely.
The class-action case that changed the timeline
A $3,000 tax debt ended with a Michigan homeowner losing her home and the county keeping $23,500 from its sale. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an October 5, 2026 opinion in Cunningham v. The ruling does not mean Thompson has won the $23,500; instead, it gives her lawsuit another chance to move forward. In December 2014, Michigan taxpayers filed a class action known as Wayside Church v. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2015 but reopened in 2019 after developments in the law.
The court said the lower court used the wrong legal approach when deciding whether Denise Thompson’s federal claim was filed too late. Years later, her fight to recover that money is back in court. The U.S. Allegan County, overturned a lower-court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings. County of Van Buren. The plaintiffs argued that counties violated the Constitution’s Takings Clause by keeping surplus proceeds after selling foreclosed properties. Thompson and the Days were unnamed members of the plaintiff class, while Allegan County was initially an unnamed member of the defendant class. Allegan County argued that Thompson and the Days had missed the deadline for bringing their federal claims. The district court agreed and dismissed the claims as time-barred. The homeowners, however, argued that their participation in the Wayside class action had paused the statute of limitations. They had remained part of that litigation for more than eight years and argued that the clock should not have been running against them throughout that entire period. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the lower court had taken the wrong approach.