Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132 (2026)

Agreements, contracts, or promises required to be in writing and signed; enforcement; "financial institution" defined.

✓ 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

566.132 Agreements, contracts, or promises required to be in writing and signed; enforcement; "financial institution" defined.

Sec. 2.

(1) In the following cases an agreement, contract, or promise is void unless that agreement, contract, or promise, or a note or memorandum of the agreement, contract, or promise, is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the party to be charged with the agreement, contract, or promise:

(a) An agreement that, by its terms, is not to be performed within 1 year from the making of the agreement.

(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or misdoings of another person.

(d) A special promise made by a personal representative to answer damages out of his or her own estate.

(e) An agreement, promise, or contract to pay a commission for or upon the sale of an interest in real estate.

(f) An assignment of things in action, whether intended as a transfer for sale, for security, or otherwise.

(g) An agreement, promise, contract, or warranty of cure relating to medical care or treatment. This subdivision does not affect the right to sue for malpractice or negligence.

(2) A person shall not bring an action against a financial institution to enforce any of the following promises or commitments of the financial institution unless the promise or commitment is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the financial institution:

(a) A promise or commitment to lend money, grant or extend credit, or make any other financial accommodation.

(b) A promise or commitment to renew, extend, modify, or permit a delay in repayment or performance of a loan, extension of credit, or other financial accommodation.

(3) A person shall not bring an action to enforce an agreement, promise, or contract to pay a commission for or upon the sale of an interest in real estate against the owner or purchaser of the real estate unless the agreement, promise, or contract is in writing signed by the party to be charged.

(4) As used in this section, "financial institution" means a state or national chartered bank, a state or federal chartered savings bank or savings and loan association, a state or federal chartered credit union, a person licensed or registered under the mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers licensing act, 1987 PA 173, MCL 445.1651 to 445.1684, or the secondary mortgage loan act, 1981 PA 125, MCL 493.51 to 493.81, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 81 ;-- CL 1857, 3183 ;-- CL 1871, 4698 ;-- How. 6185 ;-- CL 1897, 9515 ;-- Am. 1913, Act 238, Eff. Aug. 14, 1913 ;-- CL 1915, 11981 ;-- CL 1929, 13417 ;-- Am. 1945, Act 261, Eff. Sept. 6, 1945 ;-- CL 1948, 566.132 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 343, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1974 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 245, Eff. Jan. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 63, Imd. Eff. Mar. 17, 2020

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 233 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Aronoff Living Trust, 853 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Aronoff Living Trust, 853 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 35× “132(2) and noted that it required a written promise or commitment in contradistinction to the requirements stated under MCL 566.132(1), which can be satisfied with a memorandum.”

Crown Tech. Park v. D&N Bank, FSB, 619 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 50× “§ 566.132; MSA 26.922, did not bar Crown Technology's promissory estoppel claim.”

Barclae v. Zarb, 834 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “Zarb moved for summary disposition on plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the statute of frauds, MCL 566.132, precluded plaintiffs from bringing an action for breach of alleged oral representations regarding financial accommodations.”

Rodgers v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na, 890 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Defendant argued that the statute of frauds, MCL 566.132(2), barred plaintiffs’ claims because the loan-modification agreement that plaintiffs sought to enforce was never signed by any authorized representative.”

Manuel v. Gill, 753 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “[2] MCL 566.132 provides: (1) In the following cases an agreement, contract, or promise is void unless that agreement, contract, or promise, or a note or memorandum of the agreement, contract, or promise is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the party to be…”

Cruz v. Capital One, N.A., 192 F. Supp. 3d 832 (E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132 (2)(c) (emphasis added).”

Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 8× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132 (2); Crown Techn.”

Bullock v. Auto. Club of Mich., 444 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 6× “MCL 566.132; MSA 26.922. The defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court and the matter is therefore not properly before this Court.”

Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 4× “[MCL 566.132; MSA 26.922.] [25] RILEY, J., ante, pp 542, 549.”

KELLY-STEHNEY & Assocs., INC. v. MacDonald's Indus. Prods., Inc., 693 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “This matter was subsequently remanded to this Court by the Supreme Court, 469 Mich 1046 (2004), with directions that we remand the case to the trial court for consideration of the following issues: (1) whether there is a writing here sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds,…”

CAM Constr. v. Lake Edgewood Condo. Ass'n, 640 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “MCL 566.132(1)(a). The circuit court granted defendant's motion in December 1998 and plaintiff did not appeal that decision.”

Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 875 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 9× “Gillis’ fraud and misrepresentation claims: (1) the claims are barred by Michigan’s statute of frauds for actions against a financial institution to enforce a promise or commitment to modify a loan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132 (2); (2) the claims fail because they are based upon…”

Show all 233 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1) — 20 cases

Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Aronoff Living Trust, 853 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “132(2) and noted that it required a written promise or commitment in contradistinction to the requirements stated under MCL 566.132(1), which can be satisfied with a memorandum.”

KELLY-STEHNEY & Assocs., INC. v. MacDonald's Indus. Prods., Inc., 693 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “This matter was subsequently remanded to this Court by the Supreme Court, 469 Mich 1046 (2004), with directions that we remand the case to the trial court for consideration of the following issues: (1) whether there is a writing here sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds,…”

Schipani v. Ford Motor Co., 302 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

McMath v. Ford Motor Co., 259 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pursell v. Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 205 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1)(a) — 12 cases

CAM Constr. v. Lake Edgewood Condo. Ass'n, 640 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 566.132(1)(a). The circuit court granted defendant's motion in December 1998 and plaintiff did not appeal that decision.”

Kelly-Stehney & Assocs., Inc. v. MACDONALD'S INDUS. Prods., INC., 677 N.W.2d 838 (Mich. 2004).

Wood Kull Herschfus Obee & Kull Pc v. Knightsbridge Charities Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Mary T Mashni Revocable Living Trust v. Est. of Boulos N Mashni (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Int'l Union Spfpa v. Steve Angelo Maritas (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1)(b) — 7 cases

Manuel v. Gill, 753 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 566.132 provides: (1) In the following cases an agreement, contract, or promise is void unless that agreement, contract, or promise, or a note or memorandum of the agreement, contract, or promise is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the party to be…”

Simon v. Short (In re Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., L.L.C.), 596 B.R. 587 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019).

Wood Kull Herschfus Obee & Kull Pc v. Knightsbridge Charities Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Laudon Props. LLC v. Training & Treatment Innovations Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

David E Ghannam Pc v. Michael Hamame (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1)(e) — 10 cases

North Am. Brokers LLC v. Howell Pub. Schs., 913 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 2018).

P Iconic Real Est. LLC v. Acm Inv. Grp. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Iconic Real Est. LLC v. Acm Inv. Grp. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Colburn Hundley Inc v. West Michigan Developers Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

North Am. Brokers LLC v. Howell Pub. Schs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1)(f) — 5 cases

Velocity Investments LLC v. Rashard Jones (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Matthew Pantano v. Phillips Serv. Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Oaklawn Hosp. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Phillipe Martin v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(1)(g) — 3 cases

Gloria Kato Karungi v. Ronald Lee Ejalu (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

Damia Cooper v. St John Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Angela Renee Ware v. Bronson Methodist Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(2) — 40 cases

Crown Tech. Park v. D&N Bank, FSB, 619 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 566.132; MSA 26.922, did not bar Crown Technology's promissory estoppel claim.”

Rodgers v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na, 890 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant argued that the statute of frauds, MCL 566.132(2), barred plaintiffs’ claims because the loan-modification agreement that plaintiffs sought to enforce was never signed by any authorized representative.”

Barclae v. Zarb, 834 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Zarb moved for summary disposition on plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the statute of frauds, MCL 566.132, precluded plaintiffs from bringing an action for breach of alleged oral representations regarding financial accommodations.”

Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132 (2); Crown Techn.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(2)(1)(a) — 1 case

Eci Env't Consultants & Engineers v. House of Providence (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(2)(a) — 4 cases

Crown Tech. Park v. D&N Bank, FSB, 619 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 566.132; MSA 26.922, did not bar Crown Technology's promissory estoppel claim.”

Simon v. Short (In re Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., L.L.C.), 596 B.R. 587 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(2)(b) — 5 cases

Modern Indus. Inc v. Oxford Bank Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Morgan Stanley Mortg. Home Loan Trust v. Michael J Liebetreu (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Richard J Rios v. Pnc Mortg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Comerica Bank v. Cheryl Maniaci (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(3) — 10 cases

Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. NBD Bank, N.A., 890 F. Supp. 651 (E.D. Mich. 1995).

P Iconic Real Est. LLC v. Acm Inv. Grp. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Sutariya Props. LLC v. Allen & I-75 LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

20230105_C360454_31_360454.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(5) — 1 case

Nahan v. Pieprzak, 198 N.W.2d 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(a) — 15 cases

Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. 1991). “[MCL 566.132; MSA 26.922.] [25] RILEY, J., ante, pp 542, 549.”

Marrero v. McDonnell Douglas Capital Corp., 505 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Bullock v. Auto. Club of Mich., 444 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. 1989). “MCL 566.132; MSA 26.922. The defendant failed to raise this issue in the trial court and the matter is therefore not properly before this Court.”

Kamalnath v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 487 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Opdyke Inv. v. NORRIS GRAIN Co., 320 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. 1982).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(b)(1) — 1 case

Schier, Deneweth & Parfitt, PC v. Bennett, 520 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(c) — 1 case

Nygard v. Nygard, 401 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(e) — 5 cases

Lakeshore Fin. Corp. v. Comstock, 587 F. Supp. 426 (W.D. Mich. 1984).

Schultes Real Est. Co., Inc. v. Curis, 425 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Pine-Wood Ltd. v. Detroit Mortg. & Realty Co., 290 N.W.2d 86 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Edwards v. Verploegh, 396 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

North Am. Brokers LLC v. Howell Pub. Schs., 913 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(g) — 9 cases

Malik v. William Beaumont Hosp., 423 N.W.2d 920 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Powers v. Peoples Cmty. Hosp. Auth., 455 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

Smith v. City of Pontiac, 426 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Tobin v. Providence Hosp., 624 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(l) — 1 case

Onb Ridge Villa One LLC v. Oil Nut Bay Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(l)(a) — 6 cases

Zander v. Ogihara Corp., 540 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Mahnick v. Bell Co., 662 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Manuel v. Gill, 716 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Metro. Alloys Corp. v. Considar Metal Mktg., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Mich. 2009).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(l)(b) — 4 cases

Livonia Bldg. Materials Co. v. Harrison Constr. Co., 742 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Manuel v. Gill, 716 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

In Re Gene, 207 B.R. 861 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1997).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.132(l)(f) — 1 case

Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

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.