Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.224 (2026)

Unclaimed property; conditions; requirements.

✓ 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

567.224 Unclaimed property; conditions; requirements.

Sec. 4.

Unless otherwise provided in this act or by law, property is subject to the custody of this state as unclaimed property, if the conditions raising a presumption of abandonment under sections 3 and 6 to 17 are satisfied and 1 or more of the following requirements are met:

(a) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner is in this state.

(b) The records of the holder do not reflect the identity of the person entitled to the property and it is established that the last known address of the person entitled to the property is in this state.

(c) The records of the holder do not reflect the last known address of the apparent owner, and 1 of the following is established:

(i) That the last known address of the person entitled to the property is in this state.

(ii) That the holder is domiciled in this state or is a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state and has not previously paid or delivered the property to the state of the last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property.

(d) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner is in a state that does not provide by law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property and the holder is domiciled in this state or is a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state.

(e) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner is in a foreign nation and the holder is domiciled in this state or is a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state.

(f) The transaction out of which the property arose occurred in this state, and both of the following are established:

(i) The last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property is unknown or is in a state that does not provide by law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property.

(ii) The holder is domiciled in a state that does not provide by law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property.

History: 1995, Act 29, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Flint Cold Storage v. Dep't of Treasury, 776 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Flint Cold Storage v. Dep't of Treasury, 776 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Once property is presumed abandoned under one of these provisions, it “is subject to the custody of this state as unclaimed property” if one or more of the several conditions listed in MCL 567.224 has been met. Property that is both presumed abandoned and subject to the custody…”

The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “MCL 567.224. Those criteria generally require evidence of a significant connection between the abandoned property and the state of Michigan, such as the apparent owner 4 of the abandoned property having an address in Michigan.”

Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “MCL 567.224. Those criteria generally require evidence of a significant connection between the abandoned property and the state of Michigan, such as the apparent owner 4 of the abandoned property having an address in Michigan.”

Dennis O'Connor v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” “Once property is presumed abandoned under one of these provisions, it ‘is subject to the custody of this state as unclaimed property’ if one or more of the several conditions listed in MCL 567.224 has been met.” Flint Cold Storage, 285 Mich App at 493 , quoting MCL 567.”

Lisa Kemerer v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “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 § 567.224 ; id. § 567.222(n).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.224(a) — 2 cases

The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “MCL 567.224. Those criteria generally require evidence of a significant connection between the abandoned property and the state of Michigan, such as the apparent owner 4 of the abandoned property having an address in Michigan.”

Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “MCL 567.224. Those criteria generally require evidence of a significant connection between the abandoned property and the state of Michigan, such as the apparent owner 4 of the abandoned property having an address in Michigan.”

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.