Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 449 / Act 213 of 1982
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.2001 (2026)

Limited partner; right to bring action to recover judgment.

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

MICHIGAN REVISED UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT


Act 213 of 1982


449.2001 Limited partner; right to bring action to recover judgment.

Sec. 1001.

    A limited partner may bring an action in the right of a limited partnership to recover a judgment in its favor if general partners with authority to do so have refused to bring the action or if an effort to cause those general partners to bring the action is not likely to succeed.

History: 1982, Act 213, Eff. Jan. 1, 1983

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Adell v Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, Pc, 428 N.W.2d 26 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adell v Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, Pc, 428 N.W.2d 26 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 449.2001; MSA 20.2001. Limited partners are also free to pursue their own individual claims.”
Beztak Land Co. v. The City of Detroit, 298 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2002). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.2001 (“A limited partner may bring an action in the right of a limited partnership to recover a judgment in its favor if general partners with authority to do so have refused to bring the action or if an effort to cause those general partners to bring the…”
Eastland Partners Ltd. Partners v. Vill. Green Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2003). “Thus, Eastland’s limited partners had the capacity to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of Eastland without the consent of both general partners, Brown and Lutz, and Village Green’s contention that Eastland had no standing is without merit.”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff brought the action in his derivative capacity as a limited partner of CHP-98, pursuant to MCL 449.2001. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct in “vastly undervaluing the value of the project” and raising the specter of adverse tax consequences enabled them to…”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff brought the action in his derivative capacity as a limited partner of CHP-98, pursuant to MCL 449.2001. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct in “vastly undervaluing the value of the project” and raising the specter of adverse tax consequences enabled them to…”
Thomas L Thesier v. T B S K Ltd. P'ship (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “if general partners with authority to do so have refused to bring the action or if an effort to cause those general partners to bring the action is not likely to succeed.”
Thomas L Thesier v. T B S K Ltd. P'ship (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “if general partners with authority to do so have refused to bring the action or if an effort to cause those general partners to bring the action is not likely to succeed.”
Thomas P Corr Revocable Trust Agreement v. Patrick F Corr (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Moreover, MCL 449.2001 and MCL 449.2002 explicitly allow for a limited partner to bring derivative claims on behalf of the limited partnership.”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff brought the action in his derivative capacity as a limited partner of CHP-98, pursuant to MCL 449.2001. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct in “vastly undervaluing the value of the project” and raising the specter of adverse tax consequences enabled them to…”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff brought the action in his derivative capacity as a limited partner of CHP-98, pursuant to MCL 449.2001. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct in “vastly undervaluing the value of the project” and raising the specter of adverse tax consequences enabled them to…”
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.