Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1539 (2026)

Prohibited conduct equivalent to appointment of corporations and securities bureau as attorney for service of process; procedure for service of process.

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

FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW


Act 269 of 1974


445.1539 Prohibited conduct equivalent to appointment of corporations and securities bureau as attorney for service of process; procedure for service of process.

Sec. 39.

    When a person, including a nonresident of this state, engages in conduct prohibited or made actionable by this act or a rule or order hereunder, whether or not the person has filed a consent to service of process, and personal jurisdiction over the person cannot otherwise be obtained in this state, that conduct shall be considered equivalent to an appointment of the the corporations and securities bureau of the department of commerce to be his or her attorney to receive service of a lawful process in any noncriminal action or proceeding against the person or a successor, executor, or administrator which grows out of that conduct and which is brought under this act or any rule or order hereunder, with the same force and validity as if served on the person personally. Service may be made by leaving a copy of the process in the office of the corporations and securities bureau of the department of commerce, but it is not effective unless the plaintiff, which may be the department in an action or proceeding instituted by it, forthwith sends notice of the service and a copy of the process by certified mail to the defendant or respondent at his or her last known address or takes other steps which are reasonably calculated to give actual notice and the plaintiff's affidavit of compliance with this section is filed in the case on or before the return day of the process, if any or within such further time as the court allows.

History: 1974, Act 269, Eff. Oct. 15, 1974 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 92, Eff. June 20, 1984

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2023 · leading case: Wyandotte Elec. Supply Co. v. Elec. Tech. Sys., Inc., 881 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 2016).
Wyandotte Elec. Supply Co. v. Elec. Tech. Sys., Inc., 881 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “2335(3); MCL 445.1539; MCL 487.3224(1). Others expand upon delivery directions, requiring that mailed notice be sent return-receipt demanded or that some additional step be taken to prove that notice was given.”
Functional HIIT Fitness, LLC v. F45 Training Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “1791) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1539 ). However, neither of these sections create an independent mechanism to confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant.”
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.