Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6455 (2026)

Interest rate on judgments; effect of settlement offer; rejection of offer.

✓ 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

600.6455 Interest rate on judgments; effect of settlement offer; rejection of offer.

Sec. 6455.

(1) Interest shall not be allowed upon any claim up to the date of the rendition of judgment by the court, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest. All judgments from the date of the rendition of the judgment shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded annually, except that judgment upon a contract expressly providing for interest shall carry interest at the rate provided by the contract in which case provision to that effect shall be incorporated in the judgment entered. This subsection shall apply to any civil action based on tort filed on or after July 9, 1984 but before January 1, 1987 and any action pending before the court of claims on July 9, 1984. This subsection shall apply to any action, other than a civil action based on tort, filed on or after July 1, 1984 and any action pending before the court of claims on July 9, 1984.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, for complaints filed on or after January 1, 1987, interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action shall be calculated from the date of filing the complaint at a rate of interest which is 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, pursuant to this section.

(3) For complaints filed on or after October 1, 1986, interest shall not be allowed on future damages from the date of filing the complaint to the date of entry of the judgment.

(4) 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, the court shall order that interest shall not be allowed beyond the date the written offer of settlement which is made and rejected by the plaintiff, and is filed with the court.

(5) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), 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 that offer 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.

(6) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), 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 computed under subsection (2).

(7) An offer made pursuant to this section which is not accepted within 21 days after the offer is made shall be considered rejected. A rejection, under this subsection or otherwise, does not preclude a later offer by either party.

(8) As used in this section:

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

(i) With respect to an offer of settlement made by a defendant against whom judgment is subsequently rendered, an 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, an 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. 1984, Act 212, Imd. Eff. July 9, 1984 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Nation v. W D E Elec. Co., 563 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nation v. W D E Elec. Co., 563 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 4× “§ 600.6455; M.S.A. § 27A.6455, both of which provide for calculation of the interest on judgments using compound interest.”

Moore v. Dep't of Military Affairs, 278 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 14× “The issue presented on appeal is whether the Court of Claims judgment interest statute, MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455, bars recovery in the Court of Claims of prejudgment interest on damages.”

First Nat'l Bank v. Dep't of Treasury, 760 N.W.2d 775 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “MCL 600.6455 In its cross-appeal, plaintiff argues that the Court of Claims erred by calculating interest based on MCL 600.”

Young v. Michigan, 429 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 14× “In this matter of first impression, the sole issue is whether prejudgment interest should be awarded under MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455, as amended by 1986 PA 178 , effective October 1, 1986.”

Durant v. State of Michigan, 566 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 600.6455; M.S.A.§ 27A.6455, but case was, and under art.”

Henley v. Dep't of State Highways & Transp., 340 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “The final issue on appeal is whether MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455 is unconstitutional because it provides for only 5% interest from the time of judgment on awards recovered in the Court of Claims rather than the 12% rate prescribed for civil actions generally under MCL 600.”

Sweetman v. State High. Dep't, 357 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “If the court finds upon remand that plaintiff was within the scope of her rescue when injured, it shall proceed to make a redetermination of plaintiff's comparative negligence using the principles set forth supra.”

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 411 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “50 representing the claimed refund of $202,398.02 and interest from April 16, 1980, through December 31, 1984.”

Niggeling v. Dep't of Transp., 488 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “See MCL 600.6455(1); MSA 27A.6455(1); Niggeling, supra.”

Curtin v. Dep't of State Highways, 339 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455. Defendant did not appeal from this judgment.”

Miller Bros. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “On remand, the trial court will make the appropriate calculations, specifying what portion of its judgment is just compensation and what part is interest.”

Aluminum Co. of Am., & Cross-Appellant v. Dep't of the Treasury of the State of Michigan, & Cross-Appellees, 522 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1975). “The District Court’s second reason for concluding that the Section 10 remedy did not satisfy § 1341 was that Section 10 does not provide for recovery of interest from the date of payment of the contested assessment. Those corporations choosing to file for a refund with the Court…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6455(1) — 2 cases

Young v. Michigan, 429 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “In this matter of first impression, the sole issue is whether prejudgment interest should be awarded under MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455, as amended by 1986 PA 178 , effective October 1, 1986.”

Niggeling v. Dep't of Transp., 488 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “See MCL 600.6455(1); MSA 27A.6455(1); Niggeling, supra.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6455(2) — 4 cases

First Nat'l Bank v. Dep't of Treasury, 760 N.W.2d 775 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 600.6455 In its cross-appeal, plaintiff argues that the Court of Claims erred by calculating interest based on MCL 600.”

Timothy L Johnson v. Pub. Sch. Employees Ret. Sys. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Brian Yaffa v. Randolph Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6455(5) — 2 cases

Niggeling v. Dep't of Transp., 488 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “See MCL 600.6455(1); MSA 27A.6455(1); Niggeling, supra.”

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.