REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2925c Enforcement of contribution; absence of judgment as bar to contribution; discharge of other tort-feasors; judgment binding in determining right to contribution.
Sec. 2925c.
(1) Whether or not judgment has been entered in an action against 2 or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced by separate action.
(2) When a judgment has been entered in an action against 2 or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced in that action by judgment in favor of 1 against other judgment defendants by motion upon notice to all parties to the action.
(3) If there is a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, a separate action by him to enforce contribution shall be commenced within 1 year after the judgment has become final by lapse of time for appeal or after appellate review.
(4) If there is not a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, his right to contribution is barred unless he has discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable to claimant's right of action against him and has commenced his action for contribution within 1 year after payment, or unless he has agreed while action is pending against him to discharge the common liability and has, within 1 year after the agreement, paid the liability and commenced his action for contribution.
(5) The recovery of a judgment for an injury or wrongful death against 1 tort-feasor does not of itself discharge the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the judgment is satisfied. Satisfaction of the judgment does not impair any right of contribution.
(6) The judgment of the court in determining the liability of the several defendants to the claimant for an injury or wrongful death is binding as among such defendants in determining their right to contribution.
History: Add. 1974, Act 318, Imd. Eff. Dec. 15, 1974
Compiler's Notes:
Section 3 of Act 318 of 1974 provides: “The provisions of this amendatory act shall apply only to torts committed on or after January 1, 1975.”
Notes of Decisions
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 8× “MCL 600.2925c(1). However: If there is not a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, his right to contribution is barred unless he has discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable…”
Rittenhouse v. Erhart, 380 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 4× “2925(2), MCL 600.2925c; MSA 27A.2925(3). The present jury instructions, which are modeled after the suggested instructions set forth in the appendix to Placek , only require assigning a percentage to the plaintiff's contributory fault.”
Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 600.2925c. Consequently, MCL 600.2925c does not on its face apply to a claim for contribution under MCL 117.”
Hanley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 609 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, the trial court allowed Mazda’s subsequent motion to amend its affirmative defenses to include an argument that, under the contribution statute, MCL 600.2925c(5); MSA 27A.2925(3)(5), plaintiff was entitled to only one satisfaction of a judgment for his injuries.”
Sziber v. Stout, 358 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 1984).
“MCL 600.2925c(3); MSA 27A.2925(3)(3). However, the provisions of this act are applicable only to torts committed on or after January 1, 1975.”
Miller v. Riverwood Rec. Ctr., Inc, 546 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“5 Finally, Otto-Dufty argues that sanctions should not have been awarded against it because it did not intend to mislead the trial court in arguing that a motion for contribution was appropriate under MCL 600.2925c(2); MSA 27A.2925(3)(2). We review the trial court’s findings of…”
Smith v. Childs, 497 N.W.2d 538 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“See MCL 600.2925c; MSA 27A.2925(3). We are only saying that concern regarding Childs’ right to contribution should not have caused the trial court to reject the settlement agreement.”
Kaminski v. Newton, 438 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“2925(3)(5), which provides in pertinent part: The recovery of a judgment for an injury or wrongful death against 1 tort-feasor does not of itself discharge the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the judgment is satisfied.”
Vermilya v. Carter Crompton Site Dev. Contractors, Inc, 506 N.W.2d 580 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“See also MCL 600.2925c(5); MSA 27A.2925(3)(5). When a judgment is based upon actual litigation of the amount of damages and the judgment is paid in full, the plaintiff has no enforceable claim against any other obligor responsible for the same loss.”
Danyo v. Great Lakes Steel Corp., 286 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“MCL 600.2925c; MSA 27A.2925(3), 1 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed, 1978 Supp), § 4a, p 228.”
Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Prods., 414 Mich. 1102 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “(g) A defendant who has paid more than his or her share as determined under this subrule may enforce the right of contribution by motion or separate action, as provided in MCL 600.2925c; MSA 27A.2925(3). (h) Except as provided in subsection (f), the submission of (or failure to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(1) — 2 cases
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005).
“MCL 600.2925c(1). However: If there is not a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, his right to contribution is barred unless he has discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(2) — 1 case
Miller v. Riverwood Rec. Ctr., Inc, 546 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“5 Finally, Otto-Dufty argues that sanctions should not have been awarded against it because it did not intend to mislead the trial court in arguing that a motion for contribution was appropriate under MCL 600.2925c(2); MSA 27A.2925(3)(2). We review the trial court’s findings of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(3) — 1 case
Sziber v. Stout, 358 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 1984).
“MCL 600.2925c(3); MSA 27A.2925(3)(3). However, the provisions of this act are applicable only to torts committed on or after January 1, 1975.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(4) — 5 cases
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005).
“MCL 600.2925c(1). However: If there is not a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, his right to contribution is barred unless he has discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable…”
Rittenhouse v. Erhart, 380 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. 1986).
“2925(2), MCL 600.2925c; MSA 27A.2925(3). The present jury instructions, which are modeled after the suggested instructions set forth in the appendix to Placek , only require assigning a percentage to the plaintiff's contributory fault.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(5) — 3 cases
Hanley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 609 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“Nevertheless, the trial court allowed Mazda’s subsequent motion to amend its affirmative defenses to include an argument that, under the contribution statute, MCL 600.2925c(5); MSA 27A.2925(3)(5), plaintiff was entitled to only one satisfaction of a judgment for his injuries.”
Kaminski v. Newton, 438 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“2925(3)(5), which provides in pertinent part: The recovery of a judgment for an injury or wrongful death against 1 tort-feasor does not of itself discharge the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the judgment is satisfied.”
Vermilya v. Carter Crompton Site Dev. Contractors, Inc, 506 N.W.2d 580 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“See also MCL 600.2925c(5); MSA 27A.2925(3)(5). When a judgment is based upon actual litigation of the amount of damages and the judgment is paid in full, the plaintiff has no enforceable claim against any other obligor responsible for the same loss.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2925c(l) — 1 case
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005).
“MCL 600.2925c(1). However: If there is not a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tort-feasor seeking contribution, his right to contribution is barred unless he has discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable…”
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.