REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.5750 Summary proceedings not exclusive of other remedies; merging or barring of claims; damages.
Sec. 5750.
The remedy provided by summary proceedings is in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies, either legal, equitable or statutory. A judgment for possession under this chapter does not merge or bar any other claim for relief, except that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of an executory contract for the purchase of premises shall merge and bar any claim for money payments due or in arrears under the contract at the time of trial and that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of such an executory contract which results in the issuance of a writ of restitution shall also bar any claim for money payments which would have become due under the contract subsequent to the time of issuance of the writ. The plaintiff obtaining a judgment for possession of any premises under this chapter is entitled to a civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be.
History: Add. 1972, Act 120, Eff. July 1, 1972
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Gruskin v. Fisher
Gruskin v. Fisher (1979)
mich · cites it 8×
“The trial court found that MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750, changed the common-law rule of election of remedies so that the initiation of forfeiture does not bar alternative relief procedures until the land contract vendor has obtained a judgment for possession in district court.”
J.A.M. Corp. v. AARO Disposal, Inc. (1999)
mich · cites it 6×
“Regarding such proceedings, MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750 provides: The remedy provided by summary proceedings [for recovery of possession of premises under MCL 600.”
Mazur v. Young (2007)
ca6 · cites it 2×
“” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5750 (emphasis added); see also Cote, 546 N.”
Wilson v. Taylor (1998)
mich · cites it 2×
“§ 600.5750; M.S.A. § 27A.5750; see also Day v.”
1300 Lafayette East Cooperative, Inc v. Savoy (2009)
michctapp
“A judgment for possession under this chapter does not merge or bar any other claim for relief, except that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of an executory contract for the purchase of premises shall merge and bar any claim for money payments due or in arrears under…”
Sewell v. Clean Cut Management, Inc (2001)
mich
“at 168 , citing MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750. There, we recognized that the legislative intent for this exception was to remove the incentive for attorneys to “fasten all other pending claims to swiftly moving summary proceedings.”
Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co. (2016)
michctapp · cites it 2×
“Appellants’ counsel argued that there was no res judicata effect, citing MCL 600.5750, which provides that summary proceedings are in addition to, and not exclusive of, other actions.”
Deroshia v. Union Terminal Piers (1986)
michctapp · cites it 2×
“Under MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750, the landlord is, in addi *720 tion to repossession, entitled to damages from the time of demand for possession or notice to quit.”
Michigan National Bank v. Cote (1996)
mich · cites it 2×
“We conclude that recovery of those delinquent taxes is barred by MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750, and reverse. i In September 1986, the defendants purchased a parcel of real estate from the estate of Philip A.”
De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero (1993)
michctapp
“” MCL 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750. 10 We disagree with defendants’ assertion that the case of Deroshia, supra, mandates a finding that summary proceedings are a property owner’s exclusive remedy in a situation like the one presented in this case.”
Gruskin v. Fisher (1976)
michctapp · cites it 3×
“The trial judge denied the defendants’ motions, *121 relying on MCLA 600.5750; MSA 27A.5750, reading that recently enacted summary proceeding statute as stating that initiation of forfeiture does not bar other alternative relief procedures until the land contract vendor has…”
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.