Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 490.52 (2026)

Presumptions of ownership; credit unions liability and set-off rights.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

CREDIT UNION MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNTS

Act 41 of 1968

490.52 Presumptions of ownership; credit unions liability and set-off rights.

Sec. 2.

The presumptions created by sections 3 to 7 concerning beneficial ownership as between parties, or as between parties and beneficiaries, of multiple-party accounts are relevant only to controversies between these persons or their creditors and other successors, and shall have no bearing on the rights of withdrawal of such persons as determined by the terms of account contracts. The provisions of sections 11 to 16 govern the liability of credit unions who make payments pursuant thereto, and their set-off rights.

History: 1968, Act 41, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968

Compiler's Notes:

For transfer of authority, powers, duties, functions, and responsibility of the financial institutions bureau and the commissioner of the financial institutions bureau to the commissioner of the office of financial and insurance services and the office of financial and insurance services by type III transfer, see E.R.O. No. 2000-2, compiled at MCL 445.2003 of the Michigan compiled laws.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2011 · leading case: In re Houston, 463 B.R. 452 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Houston, 463 B.R. 452 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 28× “Specifically, the Credit Union argues: (1) the Credit Union has a lien on the Survivorship Account and may enforce its lien by setting-off the funds in that account against the debt owed to it by Debtor pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 490.361 (4); and (2) the Credit Union is…”

In Re Hess, 456 B.R. 309 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “In light of the Court’s determination that the only multiple-party account established under the Application was limited to the Debtor’s mother’s checking account, it is not necessary for the Court to address the Debtor’s second argument about the presumptions that exist under…”

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.