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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 449.2002 (2026)

Status of plaintiff in derivative action.

✓ 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


449.2002 Status of plaintiff in derivative action.

Sec. 1002.

    In a derivative action, the plaintiff must be a partner at the time of bringing the action and (1) at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains or (2) his or her status as a partner had devolved upon him or her by operation of law or pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement from a person who was a partner at the time of the transaction.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Defendants argued that RULPA prohibited plaintiff’s suit, because MCL 449.2002 prohibits a party from bringing a derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership if the party is not a partner at both the time of the alleged wrongdoing and the time of the filing of the…”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Defendants argued that RULPA prohibited plaintiff’s suit, because MCL 449.2002 prohibits a party from bringing a derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership if the party is not a partner at both the time of the alleged wrongdoing and the time of the filing of the…”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “MCL 449.2002 provides that in order for someone to sustain such a derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership, the plaintiff, among other things, “must be a partner at the time of bringing the action.”
Patrick J McCourt v. Kenneth C Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “MCL 449.2002 provides that in order for someone to sustain such a derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership, the plaintiff, among other things, “must be a partner at the time of bringing the action.”
Thomas P Corr Revocable Trust Agreement v. Patrick F Corr (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “2001 and MCL 449.2002 explicitly allow for a limited partner to bring derivative claims on behalf of the limited partnership.”
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.