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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821 (2026)

Recovery of land or public ground; period of limitations; personal actions; maintenance, care, and treatment of persons in state institutions.

✓ 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


600.5821 Recovery of land or public ground; period of limitations; personal actions; maintenance, care, and treatment of persons in state institutions.

Sec. 5821.

    (1) An action for the recovery of any land to which this state is a party is not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches. However, a person who could have asserted claim to title by adverse possession for more than 15 years is entitled to seek any other equitable relief in an action to determine title to the land.

    (2) In an action involving the recovery or the possession of land, including a public highway, street, alley, easement, or other public ground, a municipal corporation, political subdivision of this state, or county road commission is not subject to any of the following:

    (a) The periods of limitations under this act.

    (b) Laches.

    (c) A claim for adverse possession, acquiescence for the statutory period, or a prescriptive easement.

    (3) The periods of limitations prescribed for personal actions apply equally to personal actions brought in the name of the people of this state, in the name of any officer of this state, or otherwise for the benefit of this state, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (4).

    (4) Actions brought in the name of this state, the people of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, or in the name of any officer or otherwise for the benefit of this state or a political subdivision of this state for the recovery of the cost of maintenance, care, and treatment of persons in hospitals, homes, schools, and other state institutions are not subject to the statute of limitations and may be brought at any time without limitation, notwithstanding any contrary provisions of a statute.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 35, Eff. Mar. 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 52, Eff. June 20, 2016

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agency, 791 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agency, 791 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 66× “5821(4) exempts the state entities it lists from the one-year-back rule. As a consequence, we overrule Liptow v State Farm Mut Ins Co,1 which held to the contrary, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Waisanen v. Superior Twp., 854 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 40× “MCL 600.5821 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Actions for the recovery of any land where the state is a party are not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches.”
Mason v. City of Menominee, 766 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 38× “However, a person who could have asserted claim to title by adverse possession for more than 15 years is entitled to seek any other equitable relief in an action to determine title to the land.”
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 815 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 11× “As in Cameron, the Court recognized that the one-year-back rule is not a statute of limitations, but a damages-limiting provision.”
Liptow v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 726 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “The MDCH also opposed defendant's motion, adopting both plaintiff's factual presentation and legal arguments, and also implicitly assuming that the minority saving provision tolled the one-year-back rule for the recovery of damages.”
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. Canton Charter Twp., 711 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 19× “In 1988, the Legislature enacted the current provisions found in MCL 600.5821(1) and (2). See 1988 PA 35 ; Gorte, supra at 166-167 .”
Beach v. Lima Twp., 770 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “A Defendant first contends that its status as a municipal corporation renders it immune, by statute, from an adverse possession claim to a public street, citing MCL 600.5821(2), which provides: “Actions brought by any municipal corporation for the recovery of the possession of…”
Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 650 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs also responded to the motions for summary disposition filed by State Farm and Travelers, arguing that their claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because it was exempt from the statute pursuant to MCL 600.5821(4). On May 6, 1999, the trial court granted…”
Gorte v. Dep't of Transp., 507 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “The circuit court held that the newly amended MCL 600.5821; MSA 27A.5821 did not bar plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim because their interest in the property vested before March 1, 1988.”
Matthews v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 792 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “10 Effective March 1,1988, however, the Legislature, in 1988 PA 35 , *36 amended MCL 600.5821(1) and reinstated the common-law rule that one cannot acquire title to state-owned property through adverse possession or prescriptive easement.”
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “12 A comprehensive discussion of these two subjects is beyond the scope of this dissent.”
City of Detroit v. 19675 Hasse, 671 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 600.5821, provides: *161 (1) Actions for the recovery of any land where the state is a party are not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(1) — 17 cases
Matthews v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 792 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “10 Effective March 1,1988, however, the Legislature, in 1988 PA 35 , *36 amended MCL 600.5821(1) and reinstated the common-law rule that one cannot acquire title to state-owned property through adverse possession or prescriptive easement.”
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “12 A comprehensive discussion of these two subjects is beyond the scope of this dissent.”
Mason v. City of Menominee, 766 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “However, a person who could have asserted claim to title by adverse possession for more than 15 years is entitled to seek any other equitable relief in an action to determine title to the land.”
Gorte v. Dep't of Transp., 507 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “The circuit court held that the newly amended MCL 600.5821; MSA 27A.5821 did not bar plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim because their interest in the property vested before March 1, 1988.”
Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Gerrish Twp., 662 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2) — 13 cases
Waisanen v. Superior Twp., 854 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 600.5821 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Actions for the recovery of any land where the state is a party are not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches.”
Mason v. City of Menominee, 766 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “However, a person who could have asserted claim to title by adverse possession for more than 15 years is entitled to seek any other equitable relief in an action to determine title to the land.”
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. Canton Charter Twp., 711 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In 1988, the Legislature enacted the current provisions found in MCL 600.5821(1) and (2). See 1988 PA 35 ; Gorte, supra at 166-167 .”
Beach v. Lima Twp., 770 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “A Defendant first contends that its status as a municipal corporation renders it immune, by statute, from an adverse possession claim to a public street, citing MCL 600.5821(2), which provides: “Actions brought by any municipal corporation for the recovery of the possession of…”
Haynes v. Vill. of Beulah, 865 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2)(A) — 1 case
Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2)(C) — 1 case
Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2)(a) — 2 cases
Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Lanny L Scoby Trust v. Brian H Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2)(b) — 1 case
Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(2)(c) — 7 cases
Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Lanny L Scoby Trust v. Brian H Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Oakland Twp. Parks & Rec. Comm'n v. Michael Marlowe (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Oakland Twp. Parks & Rec. Comm'n v. Michael Marlowe (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Fouad Bou-Melhem v. Trumbull-Commonwealth LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(3) — 5 cases
City of Detroit v. 19675 Hasse, 671 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 600.5821, provides: *161 (1) Actions for the recovery of any land where the state is a party are not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches.”
Caywood v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 248 N.W.2d 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
City of Detroit v. 19675 Hasse, 258 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Bp Plc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Bp Plc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5821(4) — 13 cases
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agency, 791 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. 2010). “5821(4) exempts the state entities it lists from the one-year-back rule. As a consequence, we overrule Liptow v State Farm Mut Ins Co,1 which held to the contrary, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 815 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2012). “As in Cameron, the Court recognized that the one-year-back rule is not a statute of limitations, but a damages-limiting provision.”
Liptow v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 726 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “The MDCH also opposed defendant's motion, adopting both plaintiff's factual presentation and legal arguments, and also implicitly assuming that the minority saving provision tolled the one-year-back rule for the recovery of damages.”
Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 650 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Plaintiffs also responded to the motions for summary disposition filed by State Farm and Travelers, arguing that their claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because it was exempt from the statute pursuant to MCL 600.5821(4). On May 6, 1999, the trial court granted…”
Mudge v. MacOmb Cnty., 580 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1998).
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.