Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 38 / Act 100 of 2002
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.1683 (2026)

Rights not subject to process of law or assignment.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROTECTION ACT


Act 100 of 2002


38.1683 Rights not subject to process of law or assignment.

Sec. 3.

    The right of a member or retirant of a retirement system to a retirement benefit shall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, the operation of bankruptcy or insolvency laws, or other process of law and shall be unassignable.

History: 2002, Act 100, Imd. Eff. Mar. 27, 2002

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: Whitwood, Inc. v. South Boulevard Prop. Mgmt. Co., 701 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Whitwood, Inc. v. South Boulevard Prop. Mgmt. Co., 701 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Defendants argued that these funds were exempt from garnishment or execution under 42 USC 407(a) and MCL 38.1683, so the garnishment must be quashed.”
In re Hamacher, 535 B.R. 180 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “Subsection (3) of the above-quoted statute incorporates Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.1683 , which provides: “The right of a member or retirant of a retirement system to a retirement benefit shall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, the operation of bankruptcy or…”
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n v. Bareham (In Re Quinn), 327 B.R. 818 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2005). “§ 38.1683. Similarly, § 40(1) of the Michigan State Employees’ Retirement Act, pri- or to the enactment of the MPERBPA, provided that: The right of a person to a pension, an annuity, a retirement allowance, any op *825 tional benefit, any other right accrued or accruing to any…”
Shapiro v. Sassak, 426 B.R. 680 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “977 (“no claim for payment under this act shall be assignable, or subject to garnishment, attachment, or levy of execution”); the exemption for state employee retirement benefits, MCL 38.1683 (“the right of a member or retirant of a retirement system to a retirement benefit…”
Comerica Bank v. Michael Kelman (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Whitwood Court held that, in contrast to the social security funds, the teacher pension funds lost their protection following deposit because MCL 38.1683 did not include the protective language contained in 42 USC 407(a) exempting “moneys paid.”
Comerica Bank v. Michael Kelman (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Whitwood Court held that, in contrast to the social security funds, the teacher pension funds lost their protection following deposit because MCL 38.1683 did not include the protective language contained in 42 USC 407(a) exempting “moneys paid.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.