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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5726 (2026)

Recovery of possession following forfeiture of executory contract for purchase of premises; accelerated indebtedness.

✓ 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


600.5726 Recovery of possession following forfeiture of executory contract for purchase of premises; accelerated indebtedness.

Sec. 5726.

    A person entitled to any premises may recover possession thereof by a proceeding under this chapter after forfeiture of an executory contract for the purchase of the premises but only if the terms of the contract expressly provide for termination or forfeiture, or give the vendor the right to declare a forfeiture, in consequence of the nonpayment of any moneys required to be paid under the contract or any other material breach of the contract. For purposes of this chapter, moneys required to be paid under the contract shall not include any accelerated indebtedness by reason of breach of the contract.

History: Add. 1972, Act 120, Eff. July 1, 1972

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Gruskin v. Fisher, 273 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gruskin v. Fisher, 273 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726. Additionally, the statute requires that the vendor give notice of forfeiture and provides a 15-day period in which the vendee can cure the default.”
Carpenter v. Smith, 383 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “See MCL 600.5726 et seq.; MSA 27A.5726 et seq.”
Mazur v. Young, 507 F.3d 1013 (6th Cir. 2007). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5726 . . As observed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in a recent unpublished opinion, forfeiture and rescission are not identical.”
Matter of Delex Mgmt., 155 B.R. 161 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 3× “” Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 600.5726. ‘"Premises’ includes lands, tenements, condominium property, cooperative apartments, air rights and all manner of real property.”
Cipriano v. Tocco, 757 F. Supp. 1484 (E.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “For one thing, it appears that Mr. Ioli, or the persons occupying the premises through him, 8 are entitled to notice of the claimed forfeiture and an opportunity to cure any default under the terms of the assignment before the Ciprianos are entitled to maintain summary…”
Birznieks v. Cooper, 275 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 1979). “MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726. After such default, which is presumably known by the defaulting purchaser who is a party to the contract, the seller must serve the purchaser with a notice of forfeiture and allow the purchaser at least 15 days thereafter to pay any moneys due under,…”
Bruwer v. Oaks, 554 N.W.2d 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “See MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726. Because the district court’s action flowed from its powers arising under Chapter 57 of the RJA, its actions are within the scope of § 8302(3), and § 8301(1) is inapplicable.”
Minchella v. Fredericks, 360 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Summary proceedings are the exclusive remedy based upon forfeiture and the statute provides: "For purposes of this chapter, moneys required to be *473 paid under the contract shall not include any accelerated indebtedness by reason of breach of the contract.”
VanElsacker v. Erzberger, 357 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “(The land contract contained the requisite provision for forfeiture upon nonpayment, MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726). This complaint stated in pertinent part as follows: "2.”
Majestic Golf, LLC v. Lake Walden Country Club, Inc., 823 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “] While the Legislature has limited the effectiveness of express forfeiture clauses in land contracts, MCL 600.5726 (requiring the occurrence of a material breach as a precondition of forfeiture of a land contract, regardless of whether the contract has an explicit termination…”
Ames v. Maxson, 403 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Recovery of possession after forfeiture of an executory land contract is provided for by MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726. Joinder of claims is allowed in the district court summary proceedings, MCL 600.”
Day v. Lacchia, 437 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “We first note that pursuant to MCL 600.5726; MSA 27A.5726 monies required to be paid to redeem the contract property cannot include any accelerated indebtedness by reason of the contract breach.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.