Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 566 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.109 (2026)

Statute of frauds; consideration, statement in contract, evidence.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


566.109 Statute of frauds; consideration, statement in contract, evidence.

Sec. 9.

    The consideration of any contract or agreement, required by the provisions of this chapter to be in writing, need not be set forth in the contract or agreement, or in the note or memorandum thereof, but may be proved by any other legal evidence.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 80 ;-- CL 1857, 3180 ;-- CL 1871, 4695 ;-- How. 6182 ;-- CL 1897, 9512 ;-- CL 1915, 11978 ;-- CL 1929, 13414 ;-- CL 1948, 566.109

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1996–2009 · leading case: In Re Skotzke Est., 548 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Skotzke Est., 548 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “In Benedek v Mechanical Products, Inc, [1] the Michigan Supreme Court discussed whether a written memorandum satisfied the statute of frauds.”
In Re Rudell Est., 780 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 566.109; Benedek v Mechanical Products, Inc, 314 Mich 494, 511-512 ; 22 NW2d 901 (1946); In re Skotzke Estate, 216 Mich App 247, 250 ; 548 NW2d 695 (1996).”
KELLY-STEHNEY & Assocs., INC. v. MacDonald's Indus. Prods., Inc., 693 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “3 Although In re Skotzke Estate involved MCL 566.109 rather than MCL 566.136, this Court observed that the two sections are virtually identical and stated that decisions under one section apply equally to similar questions arising under the other.”
Scott v. Skotzke, 216 Mich. App. 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “In Benedek, v Mechanical Products, Inc, 1 the Michigan Supreme Court discussed whether a written memorandum satisfied the statute of frauds.”
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.