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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011 (2026)

Garnishment; property or obligation applicable to satisfaction of claim; jurisdiction; state and governmental units as garnishees; ex parte application for writ of garnishment; service; conditions to commencement of garnishment proceeding; immunity of sheriff or other public officer; fee; conveyance of money or property.

✓ 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


600.4011 Garnishment; property or obligation applicable to satisfaction of claim; jurisdiction; state and governmental units as garnishees; ex parte application for writ of garnishment; service; conditions to commencement of garnishment proceeding; immunity of sheriff or other public officer; fee; conveyance of money or property.

Sec. 4011.

    (1) Subject to sections 4061 and 4061a, and the conditions in subsections (2) to (10), the court has power by garnishment to apply the following property or obligation, or both, to the satisfaction of a claim evidenced by contract, judgment of this state, or foreign judgment, whether or not the state has jurisdiction over the person against whom the claim is asserted:

    (a) Personal property belonging to the person against whom the claim is asserted but which is in the possession or control of a third person if the third person is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of the state and the personal property to be applied is within the boundaries of this state.

    (b) An obligation owed to the person against whom the claim is asserted if the obligor is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of the state.

    (2) Except as provided in sections 4061 and 4061a, the court may exercise the jurisdiction granted in this section only in accordance with the Michigan court rules. Except as otherwise provided by sections 4061 and 4061a and the Michigan court rules, the state and each governmental unit within the state, including but not limited to a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, unincorporated board, public body, or political subdivision, may be proceeded against as a garnishee in the same manner and with the same effect as a proceeding against an individual garnishee.

    (3) A writ of garnishment may be issued before judgment only as provided in this subsection. Upon ex parte application showing that the person against whom the claim is asserted is not subject to the judicial jurisdiction of the state or, after diligent effort, cannot be served with process as required to subject the person to the judicial jurisdiction of the state, a copy of the writ of garnishment shall be served upon the person against whom the claim is made in the same manner as provided by the Michigan court rules for service of process in other civil actions in which personal jurisdiction over the defendant is not required. Upon entry of judgment in the principal action, the obligation or property garnished shall be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment.

    (4) A garnishment proceeding shall not be commenced against the state or a governmental unit of the state, including but not limited to a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, unincorporated board, public body, or political subdivision, until after the plaintiff's claim has been reduced to judgment.

    (5) A garnishment proceeding shall not be commenced against a person for money owing to a defendant on account of labor performed by the defendant until after the plaintiff's claim has been reduced to judgment.

    (6) A sheriff or other public officer is not subject to garnishment for money or things received or collected by him or her pursuant to an execution or other legal process in the favor of the defendant or because of any money in his or her hands for which he or she is accountable merely as a public officer to the defendant.

    (7) A garnishment proceeding shall not be commenced if the commencement of such a proceeding is forbidden by a statute of this state.

    (8) Except as otherwise provided in sections 4012 and 4061, a plaintiff shall pay a fee of $1.00 to the garnishee at the time the garnishee is served with a writ of garnishment.

    (9) If the court or garnishee possesses money or property pursuant to a writ of garnishment after the court releases the garnishee from liability under that writ, the court shall convey or order the conveyance of the money or property to any of the following, as the court determines appropriate:

    (a) The defendant's attorney, if the defendant is represented by counsel in the garnishment proceeding.

    (b) The defendant, if the defendant is not represented by counsel in the garnishment proceeding.

    (c) The plaintiff.

    (10) A writ of garnishment is not effective if both of the following conditions are met:

    (a) The plaintiff fails to provide the garnishee with information sufficient for the garnishee to identify the defendant.

    (b) The garnishee provides the court with written notice of the insufficiency described in subdivision (a).

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 371, Eff. Apr. 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 346, Eff. Mar. 1, 1995

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 371 of 1974 provides: “The provisions of this act shall apply to all actions pending or commenced on or after the effective date of this act.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp. v. Luptak, 625 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp. v. Luptak, 625 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1). The court may exercise its garnishment power only in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules.”
Margo Hudson v. Bryan Coleman Eric Rodgers, City of Flint, Garnishee-Appellee, 347 F.3d 138 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Then, on June 30, 2000, Hudson, seeking to collect the consent judgment, filed writs of garnishment on the City pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) (“Rule 69(a)”) and Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011 (1). 2 The district court found that it lacked subject matter…”
State Treasurer v. Abbott, 660 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “The payments do not lose their character as income because they are used to satisfy debts." Guidry II, supra at 706.”
Mary v. Lewis, 249 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “"(8) The value of all tangible or intangible property of the principal defendant which, prior to the time of the service of the writ upon the garnishee, the garnishee received or held by conveyance, transfer or title that was void as to creditors of the principal defendant…”
Royal York of Plymouth Ass'n v. Coldwell Banker Schweitzer Real Est. Servs., 506 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “See MCL 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and issued its findings of fact.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC., 239 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “[2] The parties have not argued that the Supreme Court is without authority to establish priorities between parties in garnishment proceedings.”
Condaire, Inc. v. Allied Piping, Inc., Nbd Bank, a Michigan Banking Corp., Garnishee, 286 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “(citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011 ; Mich. Ct. R.”
Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co., 842 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “; see also MCL 600.4011(2). Postjudgment garnishment proceedings are governed by MCR 3.”
Waatti & Sons Elec. Co. v. Dehko, 584 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1) states, in pertinent part: [T]he court has power by garnishment to apply the following property or obligation, or both, to the satisfaction of a claim evidenced by contract, judgment of this state, or *587 foreign judgment, whether or not the…”
First Nat'l Bank v. Hasty, 410 F. Supp. 482 (E.D. Mich. 1976). · cites it 3× “In opposition to the motion, defendant Hasty filed a motion to quash all writs of garnishment issued after October 1, 1975, 3 on the grounds that the post-judgment garnishment procedures of MCLA 600.4011 et seq. are violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Hosner v. Brown, 199 N.W.2d 295 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “He further maintains that his complaint meets the requirements of § 4011 of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, MCLA 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011 which specifies that to sustain a garnishment prior to judgment a claim must be "evidenced by contract”.”
Vanderkodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C., 314 F. Supp. 3d 836 (W.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011 (1) ; see Nationsbanc Mortg.”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(1) — 8 cases
Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp. v. Luptak, 625 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1). The court may exercise its garnishment power only in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules.”
Waatti & Sons Elec. Co. v. Dehko, 584 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1) states, in pertinent part: [T]he court has power by garnishment to apply the following property or obligation, or both, to the satisfaction of a claim evidenced by contract, judgment of this state, or *587 foreign judgment, whether or not the…”
Royal York of Plymouth Ass'n v. Coldwell Banker Schweitzer Real Est. Servs., 506 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “See MCL 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and issued its findings of fact.”
Berar Enter., Inc v. Harmon, 285 N.W.2d 774 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
Hosner v. Brown, 199 N.W.2d 295 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “He further maintains that his complaint meets the requirements of § 4011 of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, MCLA 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011 which specifies that to sustain a garnishment prior to judgment a claim must be "evidenced by contract”.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(1)(a) — 5 cases
Premiere Prop. Servs. Inc v. Matthew Crater (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Dawn Cartrette v. City of Melvindale Post 6032 Vfw (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Dawn Cartrette v. City of Melvindale Post 6032 Vfw (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Darnell Hairston v. Josh Lku (Mich. 2025).
Fifth Third Bank v. Triangle Assocs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(1)(b) — 4 cases
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC., 239 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “[2] The parties have not argued that the Supreme Court is without authority to establish priorities between parties in garnishment proceedings.”
Darnell Hairston v. Josh Lku (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Darnell Hairston v. Josh Lku (Mich. 2025).
Fifth Third Bank v. Triangle Assocs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(2) — 11 cases
Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp. v. Luptak, 625 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1). The court may exercise its garnishment power only in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules.”
Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co., 842 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “; see also MCL 600.4011(2). Postjudgment garnishment proceedings are governed by MCR 3.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC., 239 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “[2] The parties have not argued that the Supreme Court is without authority to establish priorities between parties in garnishment proceedings.”
Waatti & Sons Elec. Co. v. Dehko, 584 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 600.4011(1); MSA 27A.4011(1) states, in pertinent part: [T]he court has power by garnishment to apply the following property or obligation, or both, to the satisfaction of a claim evidenced by contract, judgment of this state, or *587 foreign judgment, whether or not the…”
Royal York of Plymouth Ass'n v. Coldwell Banker Schweitzer Real Est. Servs., 506 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “See MCL 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and issued its findings of fact.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(3) — 1 case
City Suburban Agency, Inc v. Dade Helicopter Servs., Inc, 366 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(4) — 1 case
Payton v. City of Highland Park, 536 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(5) — 1 case
Pease v. North Am. Fin. Corp., 244 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(l)(a) — 2 cases
Macatawa Bank v. Wipperfurth, 822 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Berar Enter., Inc v. Harmon, 285 N.W.2d 774 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4011(l)(b) — 3 cases
Royal York of Plymouth Ass'n v. Coldwell Banker Schweitzer Real Est. Servs., 506 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “See MCL 600.4011; MSA 27A.4011. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and issued its findings of fact.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC., 239 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “[2] The parties have not argued that the Supreme Court is without authority to establish priorities between parties in garnishment proceedings.”
Guernsey v. Old Kent Bank (In re Guernsey), 204 B.R. 199 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1996).
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.