Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 555.8 (2026)

Payment of consideration for conveyance to another; presumption as fraudulent; resulting trust for creditors of payee.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Revised Statutes of 1846

R.S. of 1846

555.8 Payment of consideration for conveyance to another; presumption as fraudulent; resulting trust for creditors of payee.

Sec. 8.

Every such conveyance shall be presumed fraudulent, as against the creditors of the person paying the consideration; and when a fraudulent intent is not disproved, a trust shall result in favor of such creditors, to the extent that may be necessary to satisfy their just demands.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 63 ;-- CL 1857, 2638 ;-- CL 1871, 4121 ;-- How. 5570 ;-- CL 1897, 8836 ;-- CL 1915, 11572 ;-- CL 1929, 12974 ;-- CL 1948, 555.8

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2022 · leading case: Dombrowski v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dombrowski v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 22× “Resulting Trust Defendant next asserts that Plaintiff’s property is subject to a resulting trust under Mich. Comp. Laws § 555.8 . The legal theory of resulting trusts has a long history.”

Advance Dry Wall Co. v. Wolfe-Gilchrist, Inc., 218 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “57 and MCLA 555.8; MSA 26.58. Those statutes would create an equitable interest in the land in favor of the plaintiff creditor since the valuable consideration for the land was paid for by Wolfe-Gilchrist but the title was taken exclusively in the names of Wolfe and Gilchrist.”

Dombrowski v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 9× “) Second, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s property is subject to a resulting trust in favor of Defendant under Mich. Comp. Laws § 555.8 . (Id., PageID.998-999.”

Dombrowski v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 4× “35 (2), or whether the property at issue was subject to a resulting trust under Mich. Comp. Laws § 555.8 . The court also rejected Defendant’s attempt to advance its claim that its lien was proper under a “nominee theory” of liability, as such a theory was unsupported by…”

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.