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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 567.253 (2026)

Enforcement of action; jurisdiction.

✓ 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


567.253 Enforcement of action; jurisdiction.

Sec. 33.

    The administrator may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this act.

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

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 11× “, granted plaintiffs’ motions, holding that an examination is neither an action nor a proceeding under MCL 567.253 and that even if an examination could be considered a proceeding, its commencement does not toll the statute of limitations.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. 2025). · cites it 11× “, granted plaintiffs’ motions, holding that an examination is neither an action nor a proceeding under MCL 567.253 and that even if an examination could be considered a proceeding, its commencement does not toll the statute of limitations.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Defendant noted that MCL 567.253 permitted a Treasurer to “bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this act.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Defendant noted that MCL 567.253 permitted a Treasurer to “bring 2 This case was transferred to the Court of Claims in August 2021.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× ““Instead, the circuit court characterized an ‘action or proceeding’ as an enforcement action under MCL 567.253”8 and concluded “that the Treasurer’s failure to commence such an action within the applicable limitations period prevented her from doing so in the future.”
Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× ““Instead, the circuit court characterized an ‘action or proceeding’ as an enforcement action under MCL 567.253”8 and concluded “that the Treasurer’s failure to commence such an action within the applicable limitations period prevented her from doing so in the future.”
O the Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 567.253, defendant, as the administrator of the UUPA, see MCL 567.”
O Dine Brands Global Inc v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 567.253, defendant, as the administrator of the UUPA, see MCL 567.”
The Walt Disney Co. v. Rachael Eubanks (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Under MCL 567.253, defendant, as the administrator of the UUPA, see MCL 567.”
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.