REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.6008 Execution; set-off; balance on appeal.
Sec. 6008.
(1) Executions between the same parties may be set off one against another, if required by either party as follows:
(a) When 1 of the executions is delivered for service, the person who is the debtor therein may deliver his execution to the serving officer and it shall be applied, as far as it will extend, to the satisfaction of the first execution; and such application shall be indorsed on each execution. Only the balance due on the larger execution may then be collected and paid in the same manner as if there had been no set off.
(b) Such set off shall not be allowed unless all the parties are mutual debtors and creditors. Nor shall set off be allowed where the sum due on the first execution shall have been lawfully assigned to another person before the creditor in the second execution becomes entitled to the sum due thereon, or as to so much of the first execution as may be due to the attorney in that suit for his taxable fees and disbursements.
(2) If, upon an appeal, a recovery for a debt or damages be had by 1 party, and costs be awarded the other, execution shall issue only in favor of the party to whom there shall be a balance due, and for the amount of such balance.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
Mahesh v. Mills, 602 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
Mahesh v. Mills, 602 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Although there is no statute specifically authorizing courts to order judgments satisfied by setoff, § 6008 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.6008; MSA 27A.6008, specifically authorizes the setoff of'mutual executions.”
City of Detroit v. Nat'l Exposition Co., 370 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“231 was made part of the condemnation laws of this state and simply creates a right of setoff between two debtors, somewhat analogous to the right of setoff created under MCL 600.6008; MSA 27A.6008. By its very terms, MCL 213.”
City of Detroit v. Katz, 371 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“231 was created under the condemnation laws of the state and it is thus within the jurisdiction of the circuit court to construe and apply its terms. The trial court in this case erred in refusing to consider whether MCL 213.”
Metal Stand. Corp. v. Chem. Fin. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“See Mahesh v Mills, 237 Mich App 359, 361 ; 602 NW2d 618 (1999) (noting that a setoff is an equitable remedy that may satisfy a judgment); see also MCL 600.6008. Therefore, “[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there [was] no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6008(1) — 1 case
Mahesh v. Mills, 602 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“Although there is no statute specifically authorizing courts to order judgments satisfied by setoff, § 6008 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.6008; MSA 27A.6008, specifically authorizes the setoff of'mutual executions.”
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.