Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3180 (2026)
Actions equitable in nature.
✓ 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
600.3180 Actions equitable in nature.
Sec. 3180.
Actions under this chapter are equitable in nature.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: Carpenter v. Smith, 383 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
Carpenter v. Smith, 383 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “MCL 600.3180; MSA 27A.3180. The anticipatory-breach exception now advanced by the lead opinion has never before existed in either law or equity in land contract foreclosure proceedings in Michigan.”
Mfrs. Hanover Mortg. Corp. v. Snell, 370 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “616(c); also see Brown v Lynn, 385 F Supp 986, 998 (ND Ill, 1974) (hereinafter Brown I); Hernandez v Prudential Mortgage Corp, 553 F2d 241 (CA 1, 1977).”
Mitchell v. Dahlberg, 547 N.W.2d 74 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “However, because foreclosure is an action that is equitable in nature, MCL 600.3180; *727 MSA 27A.3180, the trial court, because of its finding of fraud, was entitled to exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy appropriate for both sides of the dispute.”
SUPERIOR PROD. CO. v. Merucci Bros, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 188 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 600.3180; MSA 27A.3180. Thus, no error occurred in this regard.”
Minchella v. Fredericks, 360 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The foreclosure action, being equitable in nature (MCL 600.3180; MSA 27A.3180), was tried by the judge at the same time that the counterclaim was presented to a jury.”
Citimortgage Inc v. Joseph M Scott (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Here, even if we set aside defendants’ failure to preserve these issues, we conclude that the circuit court did not err by granting summary disposition before the date set by the court for defendants to submit their supplemental discovery response.”
Sturgis Bldg. LLC v. Kirsch Indus. Park LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “328282, Sturgis and Kirsch both challenge the circuit court’s calculation of the surplus/deficiency judgment at the close of the redemption period.”
Rau v. Calvert Investments LLC (E.D. Mich. 2019). “Count X – Wrongful Foreclosure In Count X, Plaintiffs allege that Calvert wrongfully foreclosed on the Windmill and Warren Properties in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 600.3180 et seq.4 First, Plaintiffs 4 Although Plaintiffs allege that Calvert scheduled a foreclosure…”
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. David L Carswell (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “3115 provides: -9- Whenever a complaint is filed for the foreclosure or satisfaction of any mortgage on real estate or land contract, the court has power to order a sale of the premises which are the subject of the mortgage on real estate or land contract, or of that part of the…”
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.