Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1715 (2026)

Contempt; punishment; fine; probation; performance of act or duty.

✓ 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


600.1715 Contempt; punishment; fine; probation; performance of act or duty.

Sec. 1715.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, punishment for contempt may be a fine of not more than $7,500.00, or imprisonment which, except in those cases where the commitment is for the omission to perform an act or duty which is still within the power of the person to perform shall not exceed 93 days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The court may place an individual who is guilty of criminal contempt on probation in the manner provided for persons guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1 to 771.14a.

    (2) If the contempt consists of the omission to perform some act or duty that is still within the power of the person to perform, the imprisonment shall be terminated when the person performs the act or duty or no longer has the power to perform the act or duty, which shall be specified in the order of commitment, and pays the fine, costs, and expenses of the proceedings, which shall be specified in the order of commitment.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 228, Imd. Eff. Nov. 28, 1983 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 544, Eff. Mar. 30, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 14× “But appellant has established error with regard to her sentencing because the trial court’s retroactive application of the amended version of MCL 600.1715, which enhanced the fine recoverable from appellant, violates constitutional ex post facto prohibitions.”
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 11× “1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.1715. Thus, the misconduct is a noncontractual civil wrong.”
In re Moroun, 814 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “1711; MCL 600.1715. In civil contempt proceedings, a trial court employs its contempt power to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation, including compliance with a court order, to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred as a result of contemptuous behavior, or…”
Taylor v. Currie, 743 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “205(D)(2), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court VACATES the remainder of the October 11, 2005 order because the contempt statute, MCL 600.1715, contains no authority for the additional penalties imposed, and the plaintiff has not provided any additional law allowing…”
In Re Contempt of Dougherty, 413 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 8× “[MCL 600.1715; MSA 27A.1715.] *97 This codification of the common-law power to punish contempts implicitly recognizes the distinction between doing an act forbidden by court order and refusing or omitting to perform an act commanded by court order.”
In Re Storozhenko, 459 B.R. 697 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 10× “” Although Findling designated this relief as “criminal restitution,” it is not one of the forms of relief that the Michigan contempt statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.1715, lists as one of the possible remedies to “punish” criminal contempt.”
In Re Adams Est., 667 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “In addition, the probate court ordered petitioner to reimburse the beneficiaries a total of $118,510 for unreasonable administration fees.”
Sword v. Sword, 249 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “If the contempt is designed to punish, not compel, and if the defendant cannot purge himself, MCLA 600.1715; MSA 27A.1715 provides that the punishment may not exceed a $250 fine and 30 days imprisonment.”
In Re Contempt of Calcutt, 458 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “4 Cooley L R 452-453; MCL 600.1715; MSA 27A.1715. IV This Court had authority, whether on review of the trial court's denial of a stay or directly, to order that the fund be returned in order to preserve *759 the subject matter of the appeal pending disposition of the appeal.”
Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1701; MCL 600.1715. Thus, all contempt proceedings are referred to as “ ‘quasi-criminal’ ” or “ ‘criminal in nature.”
In Re Contempt of Steingold, 624 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 600.1715; MSA 27A. 1715 and costs in the amount of $295 pursuant to M.”
In Re Contempt of ACIA, 624 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “[14] MCL 600.1715; MSA 27A.1715, M.C.L. § 600.”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1715(1) — 47 cases
In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “But appellant has established error with regard to her sentencing because the trial court’s retroactive application of the amended version of MCL 600.1715, which enhanced the fine recoverable from appellant, violates constitutional ex post facto prohibitions.”
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.1715. Thus, the misconduct is a noncontractual civil wrong.”
In Re Storozhenko, 459 B.R. 697 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). “” Although Findling designated this relief as “criminal restitution,” it is not one of the forms of relief that the Michigan contempt statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.1715, lists as one of the possible remedies to “punish” criminal contempt.”
In Re Contempt of Dougherty, 413 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. 1987). “[MCL 600.1715; MSA 27A.1715.] *97 This codification of the common-law power to punish contempts implicitly recognizes the distinction between doing an act forbidden by court order and refusing or omitting to perform an act commanded by court order.”
Taylor v. Currie, 743 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “205(D)(2), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court VACATES the remainder of the October 11, 2005 order because the contempt statute, MCL 600.1715, contains no authority for the additional penalties imposed, and the plaintiff has not provided any additional law allowing…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1715(2) — 14 cases
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.1715. Thus, the misconduct is a noncontractual civil wrong.”
Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “1701; MCL 600.1715. Thus, all contempt proceedings are referred to as “ ‘quasi-criminal’ ” or “ ‘criminal in nature.”
In re Moroun, 814 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “1711; MCL 600.1715. In civil contempt proceedings, a trial court employs its contempt power to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation, including compliance with a court order, to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred as a result of contemptuous behavior, or…”
In Re Contempt of Steingold, 624 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 600.1715; MSA 27A. 1715 and costs in the amount of $295 pursuant to M.”
In Re Storozhenko, 459 B.R. 697 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). “” Although Findling designated this relief as “criminal restitution,” it is not one of the forms of relief that the Michigan contempt statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.1715, lists as one of the possible remedies to “punish” criminal contempt.”
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.