REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.8407 Filing of claim in small claims division; restrictions.
Sec. 8407.
(1) A claim shall not be filed or prosecuted in the small claims division by an assignee of a claim or by a third party beneficiary under a third party beneficiary contract.
(2) Within a district court district a person shall not file more than the following number of claims in the small claims division in 1 week:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a person shall not file more than 5 claims.
(b) A person shall not file more than 20 claims on behalf of a county, city, village, or township.
(3) A person shall not file a claim on behalf of a sole proprietorship or a partnership unless that person is the proprietor, a partner in the plaintiff partnership, or a full-time salaried employee of the plaintiff having knowledge of the facts surrounding the complaint. A person shall not file a claim on behalf of a corporation unless that person is a full-time, salaried employee having knowledge of the facts surrounding the complaint. A person shall not file a claim on behalf of a county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district unless that person is an elected or appointed officer or an employee of the county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district who has knowledge of the facts surrounding the complaint and who is authorized by the governing body of the county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district to file the claim.
History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 496, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 272, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1984 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 192, Eff. July 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 486, Eff. Jan. 1, 2007
Notes of Decisions
Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, 776 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 39× “Plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court’s June 27, 2007, order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants (collectively referred to as “the district court”), ruling that MCL 600.8407(1) and In re Goehring, 184 Mich App 360 ; 457 NW2d 375 (1990), preclude…”
In re Transamerica Ins. Co. of Am., 414 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Since a provision included within the chapter on the small claims division prohibited an assignee from pursuing a claim in the small claims division, MCL 600.8407(1); MSA 27A.8407(1), the trial court’s grant of summary disposition seems to be based on MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8407(1) — 2 cases
Cadle Co. v. City of Kentwood, 776 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“Plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court’s June 27, 2007, order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants (collectively referred to as “the district court”), ruling that MCL 600.8407(1) and In re Goehring, 184 Mich App 360 ; 457 NW2d 375 (1990), preclude…”
In re Transamerica Ins. Co. of Am., 414 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“Since a provision included within the chapter on the small claims division prohibited an assignee from pursuing a claim in the small claims division, MCL 600.8407(1); MSA 27A.8407(1), the trial court’s grant of summary disposition seems to be based on MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8407(3) — 1 case
In re Transamerica Ins. Co. of Am., 414 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“Since a provision included within the chapter on the small claims division prohibited an assignee from pursuing a claim in the small claims division, MCL 600.8407(1); MSA 27A.8407(1), the trial court’s grant of summary disposition seems to be based on MCR 2.”
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.