Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.4102 (2026)

Conflict of laws; provisions applicable.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Act 174 of 1962

440.4102 Conflict of laws; provisions applicable.

Sec. 4102.

(1) To the extent that items within this article are also within articles 3 and 8, they are subject to those articles. If there is conflict, this article governs article 3 but article 8 governs this article.

(2) The liability of a bank for action or non-action with respect to an item handled by it for purposes of presentment, payment, or collection is governed by the law of the place where the bank is located. In the case of action or non-action by or at a branch or separate office of a bank, its liability is governed by the law of the place where the branch or separate office is located.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1978–2013 · leading case: Colorado Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 459 F. Supp. 1366 (W.D. Mich. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Colorado Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 459 F. Supp. 1366 (W.D. Mich. 1978). “§ 440.4102(2). Because defendant First National Bank & Trust Co.”

Trinh v. Citibank, N.A., 623 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Mich. 1985). “§ 440.4102 states: (2) The liability of a bank for action or non-action with respect to any item handled by it for purposes of presentment, payment or collection is governed by the law of the place where the bank is located.”

Seaway Cmty. Bank v. Progressive Cas. Ins., 531 F. App'x 648 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “1978) (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.4102 (2)). We begin by outlining the check-collection procedure that banks use.”

RPM Pizza, Inc. v. Bank One Cambridge, 869 F. Supp. 517 (E.D. Mich. 1994). “§ 440.4102 (1994). Therefore, this Court is constrained to apply Ohio law to this controversy because the Bank is domiciled in the state of Ohio.”

Mut. Sav. & Loan v. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 462 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “UCC 4-102, MCL 440.4102; MSA 19.4102. Oral notice of dishonor is not permitted under § 4-302.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.4102(2) — 1 case

Colorado Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 459 F. Supp. 1366 (W.D. Mich. 1978). “§ 440.4102(2). Because defendant First National Bank & Trust Co.”

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.