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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745 (2026)

“State” defined; agreement of parties as basis for jurisdiction; conditions.

✓ 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


600.745 “State” defined; agreement of parties as basis for jurisdiction; conditions.

Sec. 745.

    (1) As used in this section, "state" means any foreign nation, and any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States.

    (2) If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action if all the following occur:

    (a) The court has power under the law of this state to entertain the action.

    (b) This state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action.

    (c) The agreement as to the place of the action is not obtained by misrepresentation, duress, the abuse of economic power, or other unconscionable means.

    (d) The defendant is served with process as provided by court rules.

    (3) If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state, the court shall dismiss or stay the action, as appropriate, unless any of the following occur:

    (a) The court is required by statute to entertain the action.

    (b) The plaintiff cannot secure effective relief in the other state for reasons other than delay in bringing the action.

    (c) The other state would be a substantially less convenient place for the trial of the action than this state.

    (d) The agreement as to the place of the action is obtained by misrepresentation, duress, the abuse of economic power, or other unconscionable means.

    (e) It would for some other reason be unfair or unreasonable to enforce the agreement.

History: Add. 1974, Act 88, Eff. Apr. 1, 1975

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 88 of 1974 provides: “This 1974 amendatory act shall apply to actions commenced after its effective date, even if the cause of action arose prior thereto. Actions commenced prior to the effective date of this act shall not be affected thereby.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams, 724 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams, 724 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 37× “Specifically, the trial court held: I do find that I have the power to entertain the action pursuant to MCL 600.745. I do not feel that this a reasonably convenient place for any trial to be held.”
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 24× “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
Turcheck v. Amerifund Fin., Inc, 725 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff asserted that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable pursuant to MCL 600.745(3), which provides in pertinent part: If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state,…”
Metro. Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Indus., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 4× “745: (3) If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state, the court shall dismiss or stay the action, as appropriate, unless any of the following occur: (a)The court is required by…”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the Legislature has specifically established rules permitting parties to contractually consent to personal jurisdiction.”
Mcnic Oil & Gas Co. v. Ibex Resources Co., LLC, 23 F. Supp. 2d 729 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 6× “Defendants maintain that, nevertheless, personal jurisdiction should not attach because the four *736 factors of Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.745 have not been satisfied. Pursuant to that statute, if the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be…”
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. v. Chesney, 514 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Mich. 1980). · cites it 9× “§ 600.745. LONG-ARM STATUTE Plaintiff maintains that jurisdiction over defendants exists pursuant to M.”
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 11× “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
Stryker Corp. v. Christopher Ridgeway, 858 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2017). “2d 684, 689 (2006); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745 . Under Michigan law, the Michigan forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 573 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “§ 600.745; M.S.A. § 27A.745. The Legislature has not established such a rule with regard to venue.”
Vanderveen's Importing Co. v. Keramische Industrie M. deWit, 500 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “MCL 600.745; MSA 27A.745.* 1 *3We reverse and remand.”
Snider v. Lone Star Art Trading Co., Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1249 (E.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 600.745. 10 Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, M.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(1) — 1 case
Kewadin Casinos Gaming v. Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(2) — 20 cases
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams, 724 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Specifically, the trial court held: I do find that I have the power to entertain the action pursuant to MCL 600.745. I do not feel that this a reasonably convenient place for any trial to be held.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 1999). “NOTES [1] The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the Legislature has specifically established rules permitting parties to contractually consent to personal jurisdiction.”
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. v. Chesney, 514 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 600.745. LONG-ARM STATUTE Plaintiff maintains that jurisdiction over defendants exists pursuant to M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(2)(a) — 1 case
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(2)(b) — 10 cases
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams, 724 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Specifically, the trial court held: I do find that I have the power to entertain the action pursuant to MCL 600.745. I do not feel that this a reasonably convenient place for any trial to be held.”
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. v. Chesney, 514 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 600.745. LONG-ARM STATUTE Plaintiff maintains that jurisdiction over defendants exists pursuant to M.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 573 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 600.745; M.S.A. § 27A.745. The Legislature has not established such a rule with regard to venue.”
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Abel, 767 N.W.2d 656 (Mich. 2009).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(2)(c) — 5 cases
Lease Acceptance Corp. v. Adams, 724 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Specifically, the trial court held: I do find that I have the power to entertain the action pursuant to MCL 600.745. I do not feel that this a reasonably convenient place for any trial to be held.”
Mcnic Oil & Gas Co. v. Ibex Resources Co., LLC, 23 F. Supp. 2d 729 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “Defendants maintain that, nevertheless, personal jurisdiction should not attach because the four *736 factors of Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.745 have not been satisfied. Pursuant to that statute, if the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be…”
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. v. Chesney, 514 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 600.745. LONG-ARM STATUTE Plaintiff maintains that jurisdiction over defendants exists pursuant to M.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 573 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 600.745; M.S.A. § 27A.745. The Legislature has not established such a rule with regard to venue.”
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(2)(d) — 1 case
In Re Trade Partners, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 772 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.745(2) provides that If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy may be brought in this state and the agreement provides the only basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, a court of this state shall entertain the action" if all…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(3) — 12 cases
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
Turcheck v. Amerifund Fin., Inc, 725 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiff asserted that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable pursuant to MCL 600.745(3), which provides in pertinent part: If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state,…”
Metro. Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Indus., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “745: (3) If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state, the court shall dismiss or stay the action, as appropriate, unless any of the following occur: (a)The court is required by…”
Bennett v. Am. Online, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
Steven Barshaw v. Allegheny Performance Plastics LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(3)(a) — 5 cases
Turcheck v. Amerifund Fin., Inc, 725 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiff asserted that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable pursuant to MCL 600.745(3), which provides in pertinent part: If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state,…”
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
Summit Diamond Bridge Lenders LLC v. Philip R Seaver Title Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Summit Diamond Bridge Lenders LLC v. Philip R Seaver Title Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
20241120_C369279_26_369279.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(3)(b) — 2 cases
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
Summit Diamond Bridge Lenders LLC v. Philip R Seaver Title Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(3)(c) — 3 cases
Turcheck v. Amerifund Fin., Inc, 725 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiff asserted that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable pursuant to MCL 600.745(3), which provides in pertinent part: If the parties agreed in writing that an action on a controversy shall be brought only in another state and it is brought in a court of this state,…”
Robert a Hansen Fam. Trust v. Fgh Indus., LLC, 760 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Whether a forum-selection clause is enforceable under *475 MCL 600.745 presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.”
Summit Diamond Bridge Lenders LLC v. Philip R Seaver Title Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.745(3)(d) — 1 case
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. v. Chesney, 514 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 600.745. LONG-ARM STATUTE Plaintiff maintains that jurisdiction over defendants exists pursuant to M.”
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.