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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.250 (2026)

Expiration of time period specified by contract, statute, or court order; exception; commencement of action or proceeding.

✓ 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


567.250 Expiration of time period specified by contract, statute, or court order; exception; commencement of action or proceeding.

Sec. 30.

    (1) The expiration, before or after the effective date of this act, of any period of time specified by contract, statute, or court order, during which a claim for money or property can be made or during which an action or proceeding may be commenced or enforced to obtain payment of a claim for money or to recover property, does not prevent the money or property from being presumed abandoned or affect any duty to file a report or to pay or deliver abandoned property to the administrator as required by this act. This subsection does not apply to gift cards or gift certificates.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), an action or proceeding shall not be commenced by the administrator with respect to any duty of a holder under this act more than 10 years, or, for the holder of records of transactions between 2 or more associations as defined under section 37(a)(2), more than 5 years, after the duty arose.

    (3) For eligible holders electing to participate in the streamlined audit process described in section 31b, an action or proceeding shall not be commenced by the administrator with respect to any duty of a holder under this act more than 4 years after the duty arose.

History: 1995, Act 29, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 208, Eff. Sept. 30, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 292, Imd. Eff. Aug. 1, 2012 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 242, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2015

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 242 of 2015 provides:

    "Enacting section 1. This amendatory act is retroactive and applies to audits in progress as of August 15, 2015, but does not retroactively apply to contested determinations in litigation before the date of enactment of this amendatory act."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 72× “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 72× “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 29× “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 29× “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “253, was “unquestionably an ‘action’ under MCL 567.250, and must be filed within the statutory period[,]” and, by failing to timely file an action within the limitations period to retrieve the unclaimed property, the claims were time-barred.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “253, was “unquestionably an ‘action’ under MCL 567.250, and must be filed within the statutory period[,]” and, by failing to timely file an action within the limitations period to retrieve the unclaimed property, the claims were time-barred.”
O the Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “Defendant argued in both appeals that the trial court erred in determining that the “examination” conducted by defendant was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and therefore the statute of limitations barred defendant’s claims.”
O Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “Defendant argued in both appeals that the trial court erred in determining that the “examination” conducted by defendant was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and therefore the statute of limitations barred defendant’s claims.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “Defendant argued in both appeals that the trial court erred in determining that the “examination” conducted by defendant was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and therefore the statute of limitations barred defendant’s claims.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.250(2) — 9 cases
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “253, was “unquestionably an ‘action’ under MCL 567.250, and must be filed within the statutory period[,]” and, by failing to timely file an action within the limitations period to retrieve the unclaimed property, the claims were time-barred.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.250(3) — 7 cases
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). “Each plaintiff also argued that because the Treasurer had not commenced an enforcement action in court, the statute of limitations in MCL 567.250(2) continued to run during the examination such that collection of some or all the allegedly abandoned property would be time-barred.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “In these consolidated appeals, the Treasurer challenged the trial court’s decisions that an audit-like “examination” by the Treasurer was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and so the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 567.”
O the Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Defendant argued in both appeals that the trial court erred in determining that the “examination” conducted by defendant was not an “action or proceeding” under MCL 567.250(2), and therefore the statute of limitations barred defendant’s claims.”
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.