Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1653 (2026)

Motion for change of venue in action based on tort; awarding expenses and costs.

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

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.1653 Motion for change of venue in action based on tort; awarding expenses and costs.

Sec. 1653.

    If a party brings a motion for a change of venue in an action based on tort alleging improper venue, the court shall award expenses and costs as follows:

    (a) If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for a hearing, require the party who opposed the motion to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in obtaining the order and to pay the statutory filing fee applicable to the court to which the action is transferred unless the court orders the change of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or when an impartial trial cannot be had where the action is pending.

    (b) If the motion is denied, the court shall, after opportunity for a hearing, require the moving party to pay to the party who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in opposing the motion, unless the court maintains venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

History: Add. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 178 of 1986 provides:

    “(1) Sections 2925b, 5805, 5838, and 5851 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to causes of action arising before October 1, 1986.

    “(2) Sections 1483, 5838a, and 6304 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1986.

    “(3) Sections 1629, 1653, 2169, 2591, 2912c, 2912d, 2912e, 6098, 6301, 6303, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6309, and 6311 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after October 1, 1986.

    “(4) Sections 1651 and 6013 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to cases filed before October 1, 1986.

    “(5) Chapter 49 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1987.

    “(6) Chapter 49a of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of more than 1 county on or after July 1, 1990 and shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of 1 county on or after October 1, 1988.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 1999).
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “1651, provides: An action brought in a county not designated as a proper county may nevertheless *598 be tried therein, unless a defendant moves for a change of venue within the time and in the manner provided by court rule, in which case the court shall transfer the action to a…”
Frankfurth v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 825 N.W.2d 353 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “” Plaintiff argues that the new reference to MCL 600.1653 is significant. We disagree.”
Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “111 is only directed at case assignment to judges within a particular court; it is not a venue rule. MCR 8.111(A); MCR 8.110(A).”
Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “111 is only directed at case assignment to judges within a particular court; it is not a venue rule. MCR 8.111(A); MCR 8.110(A).”
People of Michigan v. Kevin White Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “The referenced statute, MCL 600.1653, explains what costs and expenses must be paid when a tort action is transferred, and thus, cannot apply in a criminal case.”
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.