RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES ACT
Act 224 of 1966
445.865 Purchase or acquisition of retail installment contract or retail charge agreement by assignee; terms, conditions, and price; evidence of obligation; validity of written assignment; notice; payment to last known holder; claims and defenses; sales to which section applicable.
Sec. 15.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary:
(a) An assignee may purchase or acquire or agree to purchase or acquire any retail installment contract or retail charge agreement or any outstanding balance under either from a seller on the terms and conditions and for a price as may be mutually agreed upon, but a person shall not take a negotiable instrument, other than a currently dated check or draft, as evidence of the obligation of the buyer in a retail installment transaction.
(b) Filing of the assignment, notice to the buyer of the assignment, and any requirement that the seller be deprived of dominion over payments upon a retail installment contract or retail charge agreement, or over the goods if returned to or repossessed by the seller, shall not be necessary to the validity of a written assignment of the retail installment contract or retail charge agreement or any outstanding balance under either as against creditors, subsequent purchasers, pledgees, mortgagees, and lien claimants of the seller.
(c) Unless the assignee gives written notice of the assignment to the buyer by certified mail, or personally serves the buyer with the notice, a payment made by the buyer to the holder last known to the buyer shall be binding upon all subsequent holders.
(d) A holder of a retail installment contract of the buyer is subject to all the claims and defenses of the buyer arising out of the retail installment transaction, but the buyer's recovery shall not exceed the amount paid to the holder thereunder.
(e) This section shall apply only to sales made pursuant to a retail installment contract.
History: 1966, Act 224, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 161, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 76, Imd. Eff. Apr. 3, 1980
Notes of Decisions
Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (W.D. Mich. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.865(d), Section 15(d) of MRISA, simply states that: A holder of a retail installment contract of the buyer is subject to all the claims and defenses of the buyer arising out of the retail installment transaction, but the buyer’s recovery shall…”
Van Vels v. Premier Athletic Ctr. of Plainfield, Inc., 182 F.R.D. 500 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.865(d), Section 15(d) of MRISA, states simply that: A holder of a retail installment contract of the buyer is subject to all the claims and defenses of the buyer arising out of the retail installment transaction, but the buyer’s recovery shall…”
First of Am. Bank v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“416(101) et seq., under which an assignee is considered a “holder” of such an instrument, MCL 445.”
Boyd v. Nelson Credit Centers, Inc, 348 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“In this action, the 77 plaintiffs raise claims against defendant for breach of contract, violation of a provision of the Retail Installment Sales Act, MCL 445.865; MSA 19.416(115), and violation of the requirements of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.”
Jerry v. Second Nat'l Bank, 527 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “MCL 445.865(d); MSA 19.416(115)(d). To resolve that issue, we must also decide whether the watercraft certificates of title act (wcta), MCL 281.”
Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Warmus, 407 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“The court further relied on MCL 445.865(d); MSA 19.416(115)(d), which provides that holders of retail installment contracts are subject to all claims and defenses of a buyer of consumer goods arising out of the retail transaction, notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.865(d) — 5 cases
Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (W.D. Mich. 2000).
“Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.865(d), Section 15(d) of MRISA, simply states that: A holder of a retail installment contract of the buyer is subject to all the claims and defenses of the buyer arising out of the retail installment transaction, but the buyer’s recovery shall…”
Van Vels v. Premier Athletic Ctr. of Plainfield, Inc., 182 F.R.D. 500 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
“Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.865(d), Section 15(d) of MRISA, states simply that: A holder of a retail installment contract of the buyer is subject to all the claims and defenses of the buyer arising out of the retail installment transaction, but the buyer’s recovery shall…”
First of Am. Bank v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“416(101) et seq., under which an assignee is considered a “holder” of such an instrument, MCL 445.”
Jerry v. Second Nat'l Bank, 527 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“MCL 445.865(d); MSA 19.416(115)(d). To resolve that issue, we must also decide whether the watercraft certificates of title act (wcta), MCL 281.”
Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Warmus, 407 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“The court further relied on MCL 445.865(d); MSA 19.416(115)(d), which provides that holders of retail installment contracts are subject to all claims and defenses of a buyer of consumer goods arising out of the retail transaction, notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
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.