Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.246 (2026)

Claim of interest in property by another state.

✓ 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


567.246 Claim of interest in property by another state.

Sec. 26.

    (1) At any time after property has been paid or delivered to the administrator under this act, another state may recover the property if 1 or more of the following requirements are met:

    (a) The property was subjected to custody by this state because the records of the holder did not reflect the last known address of the apparent owner when the property was presumed abandoned under this act, and the other state establishes that the last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property was in that state and under the laws of that state the property escheated to or was subject to a claim of abandonment by that state.

    (b) The last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property, as reflected by the records of the holder, is in the other state and under the laws of that state the property has escheated to or become subject to a claim of abandonment by that state.

    (c) The records of the holder were erroneous in that they did not accurately reflect the actual owner of the property and the last known address of the actual owner is in the other state and under the laws of that state the property escheated to or was subject to a claim of abandonment by that state.

    (d) The property was subjected to custody by this state under section 4(f) and under the laws of the state of domicile of the holder the property has escheated to or become subject to a claim of abandonment by that state.

    (e) The property is the sum payable on a travelers check, money order, or other similar instrument that was subjected to custody by this state under section 5, and the instrument was purchased in the other state, and under the laws of that state the property escheated to or became subject to a claim of abandonment by that state.

    (2) The claim of another state, under the laws of that state, to recover escheated or abandoned property shall be presented in a form prescribed by the administrator, who shall decide the claim within 90 days after it is presented. The administrator shall allow the claim if the administrator determines that the other state is entitled to the property under subsection (1).

    (3) The administrator shall require a state, before recovering property under this section, to agree to indemnify this state and its officers and employees against any liability on a claim for the property.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025).
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “See MCL 567.246. The UUPA contains enforcement mechanisms for when a holder fails to comply with the previously outlined process.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “See MCL 567.246. The UUPA contains enforcement mechanisms for when a holder fails to comply with the previously outlined process.”
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.