Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 502 of 1996
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1172 (2026)

“Foreign judgment” defined.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ACT


Act 502 of 1996


691.1172 “Foreign judgment” defined.

Sec. 2.

    As used in this act, "foreign judgment" means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.

History: 1996, Act 502, Eff. June 1, 1997

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Blackburne & Brown Mortg. Co. v. Ziomek, 692 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blackburne & Brown Mortg. Co. v. Ziomek, 692 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “A judgment filed under this act has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in…”
Electrolines, Inc. v. Prudential Assurance Co., Ltd., 677 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “The “foreign judgments” governed by the uefja are the “judgments], decree[s], or order[s] of a court of the United States or of any other court that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state,” MCL 691.1172, i.e., the judgments of sister states.”
Hare v. Starr Commonwealth Corp., 813 N.W.2d 752 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 691.1172. For the same reasons, the UEFJA did not require the circuit court to recognize and enforce the antisuit provisions of the New York order of rehabilitation.”
Pecoraro v. Rostagno-Wallat, 291 Mich. App. 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “Specifically,, Pecoraro argues that the New York judgment must be honored under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, art iy § 1, and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, (UEFJA), MCL 691.”
Hauk v. Valdivia (In re Valdivia), 520 B.R. 95 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1172 . III. Order For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the issuance of a revised writ of execution in this adversary proceeding (Docket # 9) is denied.”
Reid v. McNeil (In re McNeil), 569 B.R. 274 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1173 (bold emphasis added).”
Bentley Terrace Dillard Fam. Trust v. Mark E Schlussel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Defendant argued that MCL 691.1172 “does not authorize or create a new Michigan judgment,” and that the foreign judgment “must remain valid” in order to be enforceable under Michigan’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), MCL 691.”
Bentley Terrace Dillard Fam. Trust v. Mark E Schlussel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Defendant argued that MCL 691.1172 “does not authorize or create a new Michigan judgment,” and that the foreign judgment “must remain valid” in order to be enforceable under Michigan’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), MCL 691.”
Hall v. Hall (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1172 . Valdivia, 520 B.”
Roger Groman v. Nolan's Auction Serv. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “A judgment filed under this act has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in…”
Roger Groman v. Nolan's Auction Serv. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “A judgment filed under this act has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in…”
Scott H Finch v. Holly J Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 691.1172. We agree with defendant that the circuit court erred in ruling that it needed a transfer of jurisdiction from the Ohio to enforce a contract relating to the parties’ divorce.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.