Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5730

Service of notice of forfeiture.

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


600.5730 Service of notice of forfeiture.

Sec. 5730.

    The notice of forfeiture provided for in section 5728 may be served by delivering it personally to the vendee or person holding possession under him or by delivering it on the premises to a member of his family or household or an employee, of suitable age and discretion, with a request that it be delivered to the vendee or person holding possession under him, or by sending it by first-class mail addressed to the last known address of the vendee or the person holding under him. If the notice is mailed, the date of service for purposes of this chapter is the next regular day for delivery of mail after the day when it was mailed. If notice cannot be served by 1 of these methods, it may be served by publication under the provisions of Act No. 235 of the Public Acts of 1929, being sections 554.301 and 554.302 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 and the date of the third publication is the date of service.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2013–2020 · leading case: Clohset v. No Name Corp.
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2013) michctapp “The filing of the stipulated consent judgment in this case thus did not constitute the “introduction” of a “claim,” and MCL 600.5730(1) and MCR 4.201(G)(2)(b) are therefore inapplicable.”
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Andrew Hargreaves (2020) michctapp · cites it 2× “MCL 600.5730 specifies that service of the notice of forfeiture may be made on the vendee or person holding possession under him.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5730(1) — 1 case
Clohset v. No Name Corp. (2013) michctapp “The filing of the stipulated consent judgment in this case thus did not constitute the “introduction” of a “claim,” and MCL 600.5730(1) and MCR 4.201(G)(2)(b) are therefore inapplicable.”
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.