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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5853 (2026)

Absence from state.

✓ 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


600.5853 Absence from state.

Sec. 5853.

    If any person is outside of this state at the time any claim accrues against him the period of limitation shall only begin to run when he enters this state unless a means of service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him was available to the plaintiff. If after any claim accrues the person against whom the claim accrued is absent from this state, any and all periods of absence in excess of 2 months at a time shall not be counted as any part of the time limited for the commencement of the action unless while he was outside of this state a means for service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him was available to the plaintiff.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1966–2009 · leading case: Walters v. Nadell, 751 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walters v. Nadell, 751 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff responded to defendant's motion, arguing that the period of limitations was tolled pursuant to MCL 600.5853. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant and entered an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.”
Lothian v. City of Detroit, 324 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “5851; when the defendant is absent from the state and the court has not acquired jurisdiction over him, MCL 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853; during times of war, if the plaintiff is a citizen of a country at war with the United States, MCL 600.”
Ewing v. Bolden, 486 N.W.2d 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff’s response to defendant’s affirmative defenses was that the period of limitation was tolled for those years when defendant was not in the state, MCL 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853. The trial court treated defendant’s arguments as a motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s…”
Vanslembrouck v. Halperin, 763 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.5853 provides that, under some circumstances, "[i]f any person is outside of this state at the time any claim *924 accrues against him the period of limitation shall only begin to run when he enters this state.”
Gebhardt v. O'ROURKE, 510 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. 1994). “However, we do not accept this liberal interpretation of the discovery provision as explained above.”
Ward v. Siano, 730 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “, MCL 600.5853 (defendant absent from state).”
Szlinis v. Moulded Fiber Glass Companies, Inc., 263 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “5852, MCLA 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853), Ohio (ORC 2305.”
Schumacher v. Tidswell, 360 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “MCL 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853 provides: "If any person is outside of this state at the time any claim accrues against him, the period of limitation shall *719 only begin to run when he enters this state unless a means of service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a…”
Brashers v. Jefferson, 236 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff appeals as of right, and first asserts that the statute of limitations was tolled during the entire period of defendant's absence from the state, pursuant to MCLA 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853. Plaintiff also asserts that the statute of limitations was tolled because he was…”
McFarlane v. McFarlane, 566 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “n Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in determining that most of her claim for unpaid child support was time-barred because, under MCL 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853, the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant moved to Michigan in 1984.”
Bratton v. Trojan Boat Co., 172 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “609) has been repealed and in its place, PA 1961, No 236, § 5853 *243 (MCLA § 600.5853 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Warren v. Howlett, 383 N.W.2d 636 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Our conclusion on the statute of limitations issue renders it unnecessary to consider plaintiff’s argument that the period of limitation was tolled under the provisions of MCL 600.5853; MSA 27A.5853. Affirmed. Costs to defendant.”
Show all 18 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.