Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013 (2026)

Interest on money judgment.

✓ 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

600.6013 Interest on money judgment.

Sec. 6013.

(1) Interest is allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, as provided in this section. However, for complaints filed on or after October 1, 1986, interest is not allowed on future damages from the date of filing the complaint to the date of entry of the judgment. As used in this subsection, "future damages" means that term as defined in section 6301.

(2) For complaints filed before June 1, 1980, in an action involving other than a written instrument having a rate of interest exceeding 6% per year, the interest on the judgment is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to June 1, 1980, at the rate of 6% per year and on and after June 1, 1980, to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate of 12% per year compounded annually.

(3) For a complaint filed before June 1, 1980, in an action involving a written instrument having a rate of interest exceeding 6% per year, the interest on the judgment is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate specified in the instrument if the rate was legal at the time the instrument was executed. However, the rate after the date judgment is entered shall not exceed either of the following:

(a) Seven percent per year compounded annually for a period of time between the date judgment is entered and the date of satisfaction of the judgment that elapses before June 1, 1980.

(b) Thirteen percent per year compounded annually for a period of time between the date judgment is entered and the date of satisfaction of the judgment that elapses after May 31, 1980.

(4) For a complaint filed on or after June 1, 1980, but before January 1, 1987, interest is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate of 12% per year compounded annually unless the judgment is rendered on a written instrument having a higher rate of interest. In that case, interest is calculated at the rate specified in the instrument if the rate was legal at the time the instrument was executed. The rate under this subsection shall not exceed 13% per year compounded annually after the date judgment is entered.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6), for a complaint filed on or after January 1, 1987, but before July 1, 2002, if a judgment is rendered on a written instrument, interest is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate of 12% per year compounded annually, unless the instrument has a higher rate of interest. In that case, interest shall be calculated at the rate specified in the instrument if the rate was legal at the time the instrument was executed. The rate under this subsection shall not exceed 13% per year compounded annually after the date judgment is entered.

(6) For a complaint filed on or after January 1, 1987, but before July 1, 2002, if the civil action has not resulted in a final, nonappealable judgment as of July 1, 2002, and if a judgment is or has been rendered on a written instrument that does not evidence indebtedness with a specified interest rate, interest is calculated as provided in subsection (8).

(7) For a complaint filed on or after July 1, 2002, if a judgment is rendered on a written instrument evidencing indebtedness with a specified interest rate, interest is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate specified in the instrument if the rate was legal at the time the instrument was executed. If the rate in the written instrument is a variable rate, interest shall be fixed at the rate in effect under the instrument at the time the complaint is filed. The rate under this subsection shall not exceed 13% per year compounded annually.

(8) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (7) and subject to subsection (13), for complaints filed on or after January 1, 1987, interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action is calculated at 6-month intervals from the date of filing the complaint at a rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer, and compounded annually, according to this section. Interest under this subsection is calculated on the entire amount of the money judgment, including attorney fees and other costs. In an action for medical malpractice, interest under this subsection on costs or attorney fees awarded under a statute or court rule is not calculated for any period before the entry of the judgment. The amount of interest attributable to that part of the money judgment from which attorney fees are paid is retained by the plaintiff, and not paid to the plaintiff's attorney.

(9) If a bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement in a civil action based on tort is made by the party against whom the judgment is subsequently rendered and is rejected by the plaintiff, the court shall order that interest is not allowed beyond the date the bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement is filed with the court.

(10) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (1) and subject to subsections (11) and (12), if a bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement in a civil action based on tort is not made by the party against whom the judgment is subsequently rendered, or is made and is not filed with the court, the court shall order that interest be calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment.

(11) If a civil action is based on medical malpractice and the defendant in the medical malpractice action failed to allow access to medical records as required under section 2912b(5), the court shall order that interest be calculated from the date notice was given in compliance with section 2912b to the date of satisfaction of the judgment.

(12) If a civil action is based on medical malpractice and the plaintiff in the medical malpractice action failed to allow access to medical records as required under section 2912b(5), the court shall order that interest be calculated from 182 days after the date the complaint was filed to the date of satisfaction of the judgment.

(13) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (1), if a bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement in a civil action based on tort is made by a plaintiff for whom the judgment is subsequently rendered and that offer is rejected and the offer is filed with the court, the court shall order that interest be calculated from the date of the rejection of the offer to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at a rate of interest equal to 2% plus the rate of interest calculated under subsection (8).

(14) A bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement made according to this section that is not accepted within 21 days after the offer is made is rejected. A rejection under this subsection or otherwise does not preclude a later offer by either party.

(15) As used in this section:

(a) "Bona fide, reasonable written offer of settlement" means either of the following:

(i) With respect to an offer of settlement made by a defendant against whom judgment is subsequently rendered, a written offer of settlement that is not less than 90% of the amount actually received by the plaintiff in the action through judgment.

(ii) With respect to an offer of settlement made by a plaintiff, a written offer of settlement that is not more than 110% of the amount actually received by the plaintiff in the action through judgment.

(b) "Defendant" means a defendant, a counter-defendant, or a cross-defendant.

(d) "Plaintiff" means a plaintiff, a counter-plaintiff, or a cross-plaintiff.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 240, Imd. Eff. July 21, 1965 ;-- Am. 1966, Act 276, Imd. Eff. July 12, 1966 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 135, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 134, Eff. June 1, 1980 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 50, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1987 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 78, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 175, Eff. Mar. 22, 2002 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 77, Imd. Eff. Mar. 21, 2002 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 609, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013

Compiler's Notes:

Section 3 of Act 178 of 1986 provides:

“(1) Sections 2925b, 5805, 5838, and 5851 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to causes of action arising before October 1, 1986.

“(2) Sections 1483, 5838a, and 6304 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1986.

“(3) Sections 1629, 1653, 2169, 2591, 2912c, 2912d, 2912e, 6098, 6301, 6303, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6309, and 6311 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after October 1, 1986.

“(4) Sections 1651 and 6013 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to cases filed before October 1, 1986.

“(5) Chapter 49 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1987.

“(6) Chapter 49a of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of more than 1 county on or after July 1, 1990 and shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of 1 county on or after October 1, 1988.”

Enacting section 1 of Act 609 of 2012 provides:

"Enacting section 1. Sections 2912e, 5852, and 6013 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2912e, 600.5852, and 600.6013, as amended by this amendatory act apply only to actions in which the cause of action arose on or after the effective date of this amendatory act."

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 445 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Wyandotte Elec. Supply Co. v. Elec. Tech. Sys., Inc., 881 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wyandotte Elec. Supply Co. v. Elec. Tech. Sys., Inc., 881 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 78× “Under MCL 600.6013(7), if a judgment is rendered on a written instrument evidencing indebtedness with a specified interest rate, interest is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate specified in the instrument.”

Old Orchard by the Bay Assocs. v. Hamilton Mut. Ins., 454 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 98× “[3] The arbitrator's interest award to Old Orchard was computed from the date of the filing of the circuit court complaint at the statutory judgment rate, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. Subsequently, defendant Hamilton Mutual filed several motions, including a claim that the…”

Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros., 475 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 41× “4 following entry of the arbitration award, and (3) at what point, if at all, interest is governed by MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. We hold (1) that under these facts, the arbitrators had authority to include interest as a part of their award, and thus it was improper for the…”

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 578 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 38× “§ 600.6013; M.S.A. § 27A.6013 is controlling.”

Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., PC, 808 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation such as the proper application of MCL 600.6013 and MCL 600.1483. 53 B. ANALYSIS As Judge SMOLENSKI set forth in his dissent from the original opinion, 54 *409 [w]hen rendering its verdict, the jury had to make…”

Kovacs v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 124 (Tax Ct. 1993). · cites it 28× “The deductibility of attorney's fees paid by petitioners will depend upon our resolution of the primary issue.”

Chelsea Inv. Grp. LLC v. City of Chelsea, 792 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13× “According to defendants, this interpretation is consistent with the Michigan State Court Administrative Office’s July 27, 2009, publication entitled “Interest rates for money judgments under MCL 600.6013.” With regard to MCL 300.6013(8), it stated: *260 Interest is calculated at…”

Dawe v. Dr Reuvan Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 761 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 44× “This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation such as the proper application of MCL 600.6013 and MCL 600.1483. Shinholster, supra at 548 , 685 N.”

Ayar v. Foodland Distributors, 698 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 13× “Thus, I find the majority's attempt to distinguish this Court's holding in Rittenhouse , which was reached by rewriting the statute, disingenuous in light of the majority's recognition in this case that the statute is "plain[ ]", "clear[,] and unambiguous.”

Bonkowski v. Allstate Ins., 761 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “35 in statutory interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013. The judgment denied plain *157 tiffs requests for additional attorney fees as case evaluation sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.”

Angott v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Companies, 717 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “2006, and is entitled to prejudgment interest, MCL 600.6013. Finally, we hold that plaintiff is entitled to costs as the prevailing party.”

Ronald W Lech II v. Huntmore Estates Condo. Ass'n, 890 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “Jacobson (collectively, the developers) are entitled to judgment interest under MCL 600.6013 on costs awarded as offer-of-judgment sanctions under MCR 2.”

Show all 445 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(1) — 48 cases

Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., PC, 808 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation such as the proper application of MCL 600.6013 and MCL 600.1483. 53 B. ANALYSIS As Judge SMOLENSKI set forth in his dissent from the original opinion, 54 *409 [w]hen rendering its verdict, the jury had to make…”

Dawe v. Dr Reuvan Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 761 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation such as the proper application of MCL 600.6013 and MCL 600.1483. Shinholster, supra at 548 , 685 N.”

Proudfoot v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 673 N.W.2d 739 (Mich. 2003).

Phinney v. Perlmutter, 564 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Olson v. Olson, 729 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(10) — 1 case

Thomas Luczak v. Corey a Drielick (Mich. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(11) — 1 case

Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 593 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(13) — 1 case

Thomas Luczak v. Corey a Drielick (Mich. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(2) — 9 cases

Matich v. Modern Rsch. Corp., 420 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1988).

Hadfield v. Oakland Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 554 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Jenkins v. Haworth, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 591 (W.D. Mich. 1983).

Bass v. Spitz, 522 F. Supp. 1343 (E.D. Mich. 1981).

Scott v. Allen Bradley Co., 362 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(3) — 1 case

Old Orchard by the Bay Assocs. v. Hamilton Mut. Ins., 454 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1990). “[3] The arbitrator's interest award to Old Orchard was computed from the date of the filing of the circuit court complaint at the statutory judgment rate, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. Subsequently, defendant Hamilton Mutual filed several motions, including a claim that the…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(4) — 16 cases

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 578 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. 1998). “§ 600.6013; M.S.A. § 27A.6013 is controlling.”

Sullivan Indus., Inc. v. Double Seal Glass Co., 480 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

Stewart v. Isbell, 399 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

Bloemsma v. Auto Club Ins., 436 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

Interstate Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 548 F. Supp. 1185 (E.D. Mich. 1982).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(5) — 32 cases

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 578 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. 1998). “§ 600.6013; M.S.A. § 27A.6013 is controlling.”

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 552 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Griswold Props., LLC v. Lexington Ins., 741 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Nation v. W D E Elec. Co., 563 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. 1997).

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Titan Ins., 651 N.W.2d 428 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(6) — 26 cases

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 578 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. 1998). “§ 600.6013; M.S.A. § 27A.6013 is controlling.”

Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 650 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Attard v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 602 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins., 552 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Shuler v. Michigan Physicians Mut. Liab. Co., 679 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(7) — 9 cases

Wyandotte Elec. Supply Co. v. Elec. Tech. Sys., Inc., 881 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 2016). “Under MCL 600.6013(7), if a judgment is rendered on a written instrument evidencing indebtedness with a specified interest rate, interest is calculated from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at the rate specified in the instrument.”

Bonkowski v. Allstate Ins., 761 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “35 in statutory interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013. The judgment denied plain *157 tiffs requests for additional attorney fees as case evaluation sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.”

Masters Grp. v. Comerica Bank, 2021 MT 161 (Mont. 2021).

Tahmoures Shekoohfar v. Virginia La Rosa (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

George Jappaya v. F.G.Y. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8) — 52 cases

Chelsea Inv. Grp. LLC v. City of Chelsea, 792 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “According to defendants, this interpretation is consistent with the Michigan State Court Administrative Office’s July 27, 2009, publication entitled “Interest rates for money judgments under MCL 600.6013.” With regard to MCL 300.6013(8), it stated: *260 Interest is calculated at…”

Ayar v. Foodland Distributors, 698 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2005). “Thus, I find the majority's attempt to distinguish this Court's holding in Rittenhouse , which was reached by rewriting the statute, disingenuous in light of the majority's recognition in this case that the statute is "plain[ ]", "clear[,] and unambiguous.”

Ronald W Lech II v. Huntmore Estates Condo. Ass'n, 890 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Jacobson (collectively, the developers) are entitled to judgment interest under MCL 600.6013 on costs awarded as offer-of-judgment sanctions under MCR 2.”

Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 726 F. Supp. 2d 754 (W.D. Mich. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(9) — 1 case

Esselman v. Garden City Hosp., 772 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

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.