Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 567 / Act 29 of 1995
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.223 (2026)

Unclaimed property held in ordinary course of business; presumption.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT


Act 29 of 1995


567.223 Unclaimed property held in ordinary course of business; presumption.

Sec. 3.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided by this act, all property, including any income or increment derived from the property, less any lawful charges, that is held, issued, or owing in the ordinary course of a holder's business and remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 3 years after it becomes payable or distributable is presumed abandoned.

    (2) Property is payable or distributable for the purpose of this act, notwithstanding the owner's failure to make demand or to present any instrument or document required to receive payment.

History: 1995, Act 29, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 197, Imd. Eff. Oct. 5, 2010

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 197 of 2010 provides:

    "Enacting section 1. This amendatory act applies to property presumed abandoned and subject to the state's custody as unclaimed property under this act reportable to the state for any period ending after June 30, 2010."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael Eubanks, 83 F.4th 1018 (6th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael Eubanks, 83 F.4th 1018 (6th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 567.223 (1); 567.238; 567.”
Flint Cold Storage v. Dep't of Treasury, 776 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “222(h)(i), (ii), and (iii). In general, “all property, including any income or increment derived from the property, less any lawful charges, that is held, issued, or owing in the ordinary course of a holder’s business and remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 5 years…”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “222(n) and MCL 567.223(1). Generally, “all property, .”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “222(n) and MCL 567.223(1). Generally, “all property, .”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “3 MCL 567.223 and MCL 567.226 to MCL 567.237 have been met, then the property in question “is subject to the custody of [Michigan] as unclaimed property” if one or more of the criteria listed under MCL 567.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “3 MCL 567.223 and MCL 567.226 to MCL 567.237 have been met, then the property in question “is subject to the custody of [Michigan] as unclaimed property” if one or more of the criteria listed under MCL 567.”
Dennis O'Connor v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 567.223(1), “all property, including any income or increment derived from the property, less any lawful charges, that is held, issued, or owing in the ordinary course of a holder’s business and remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 3 years after it becomes…”
O the Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Flint Cold Storage v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 483, 492-493 ; 776 NW2d 387 (2009), citing MCL 567.223(1). Once the property is presumed abandoned, it is subject to custody of the state as unclaimed property.”
O Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Flint Cold Storage v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 483, 492-493 ; 776 NW2d 387 (2009), citing MCL 567.223(1). Once the property is presumed abandoned, it is subject to custody of the state as unclaimed property.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Flint Cold Storage v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 483, 492-493 ; 776 NW2d 387 (2009), citing MCL 567.223(1). Once the property is presumed abandoned, it is subject to custody of the state as unclaimed property.”
Lisa Kemerer v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The property7 is “subject to the custody” of the State “as unclaimed property, if the conditions raising a presumption of abandonment” are satisfied. See MCL 567.224. After identifying various properties and the time frame for a presumption of abandonment, MCL 567.”
Brigitte Hendershot v. Terry Stanton (6th Cir. 2025). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.223 (1); id. §§ 567.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.223(1) — 10 cases
Flint Cold Storage v. Dep't of Treasury, 776 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “222(h)(i), (ii), and (iii). In general, “all property, including any income or increment derived from the property, less any lawful charges, that is held, issued, or owing in the ordinary course of a holder’s business and remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 5 years…”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “222(n) and MCL 567.223(1). Generally, “all property, .”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “222(n) and MCL 567.223(1). Generally, “all property, .”
Dennis O'Connor v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 567.223(1), “all property, including any income or increment derived from the property, less any lawful charges, that is held, issued, or owing in the ordinary course of a holder’s business and remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 3 years after it becomes…”
O the Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Flint Cold Storage v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 483, 492-493 ; 776 NW2d 387 (2009), citing MCL 567.223(1). Once the property is presumed abandoned, it is subject to custody of the state as unclaimed property.”
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.