MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE
Act 200 of 1945
565.101 Marketable record title.
Sec. 1.
Any person, that has the legal capacity to own land in this state, that has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for 20 years for mineral interests and 40 years for other interests, is at the end of the applicable period considered to have a marketable record title to that interest, subject only to claims to that interest and defects of title that are not extinguished or barred by the application of this act and subject also to any interests and defects that are inherent in the provisions and limitations contained in the muniments of which the chain of record title is formed and that are recorded on or before September 29, 2025 or during the 20-year period for mineral interests and the 40-year period for other interests or preserved and kept effective by recording under section 3 not later than 2 years after the effective date of the amendatory act that added section 5a. However, a person is not considered to have a marketable record title under this act if the land in which the interest exists is in the hostile possession of another.
History: 1945, Act 200, Eff. Sept. 6, 1945 ;-- CL 1948, 565.101 ;-- Am. 1997, Act 154, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 1997 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 572, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 2024 ;-- Am. 2025, Act 13, Imd. Eff. Sept. 29, 2025
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case:
Fowler v. Doan, 683 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
Fowler v. Doan, 683 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that pursuant to the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq., plaintiffs held superior title.”
Fowler v. Doan, 683 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that pursuant to the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq., plaintiffs held superior title.”
Cook v. Grand River Hydroelectric Power Co., 346 N.W.2d 881 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “As to those plaintiffs whose deeds do not specifically refer to the flowage easement, it is argued that the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et seq., operates to extinguish *826 the express easements.”
B & B Inv. Grp. v. Gitler, 581 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“, provides: No person shall use the privilege of filing notices hereunder for the purpose of slandering the title to land, and in any action brought for the purpose of quieting title to land, if the court shall find that any person has filed a claim for that reason only, he…”
Van Slooten v. Larsen, 299 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. 1980).
“24 The same result could have been achieved without any reference to the concept of abandonment by "deeming the owner of the surface estate to have marketable record title to the severed interest” at the expiration of the statutory period, see MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et…”
Energetics, Ltd v. Whitmill, 497 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. 1993).
“It has been suggested that the duration of such a lease would be limited by the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et seq.; however, that suggestion has been questioned.”
Woodbury v. Res-Care Premier, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive, we decline to address Res-Care’s remaining arguments. We reverse the order granting summary disposition to plaintiffs and remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendants.”
Cipriano v. Tocco, 757 F. Supp. 1484 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
“MCL 565.101; MSA 26.1271, provides that a qualified person who has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for 40 years shall at the end of that period be deemed to have marketable title to such interest in land subject, however, to such claims of interest…”
Strong v. Detroit & MacKinac Ry. Co., 423 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Burton Abstract next argues that, even if d&m had title to the right of way, the trial court erred in finding that d&m preserved its interest under the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et seq. Plaintiffs join in this argument.”
Hill v. Houghton Twp., 311 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“10 MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et seq. 11 MCL 565.”
Rush v. Sterner, 373 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“Plaintiffs sought to prevent rehabilitation of the "Sterner dam” by arguing that any right defendants had to "flow” or "flood” plaintiffs’ property had been extinguished by the marketable record title act, MCL 565.101 et seq.; MSA 26.1271 et seq., that the Michigan Environmental…”
Henson v. Gerlofs, 164 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
“Therefore, it is their claim that by virtue of the 40-year title standard act, [CL 1948, § 565.101 et seq., as amended by PA 1965, No 323; Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.101(1) — 1 case
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.