Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1823 (2026)

Action by director or shareholder for dissolution; judgment; proof.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT

Act 284 of 1972

450.1823 Action by director or shareholder for dissolution; judgment; proof.

Sec. 823.

A corporation may be dissolved by a judgment entered in an action brought in the circuit court of the county in which the principal place of business or registered office of the corporation is located by 1 or more directors or by 1 or more shareholders entitled to vote in an election of directors of the corporation, upon proof of both of the following:

(a) The directors of the corporation, or its shareholders if an agreement among the shareholders authorized by section 488 is in effect, are unable to agree by the requisite vote on material matters respecting management of the corporation's affairs, or the shareholders of the corporation are so divided in voting power that they have failed to elect successors to any director whose term has expired or would have expired upon the election and qualification of his or her successor.

(b) As a result of a condition stated in subdivision (a), the corporation is unable to function effectively in the best interests of its creditors and shareholders.

History: 1972, Act 284, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 63, Imd. Eff. Mar. 20, 2006

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case: William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich. 601 (Mich. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich. 601 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “Similarly, MCL 450.1823 permits the shareholders and directors of a corporation to pursue dissolution under certain circumstances.”

Loren E Pitsch Jr v. Pitsch Holding Co. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “This did not exceed the scope of the trial court’s authority on remand. Yet plaintiffs contend that this Court must have intended to order dissolution as that was the sole relief available to resolve a shareholder deadlock under MCL 450.”

William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co (Mich. 2008). “Similarly, MCL 450.1823 permits the shareholders and directors of a corporation to pursue dissolution under certain circumstances.”

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.