Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 371 of 2012
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1686 (2026)

Validity of agreement to arbitrate.

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

UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT


Act 371 of 2012


691.1686 Validity of agreement to arbitrate.

Sec. 6.

    (1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.

    (2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

    (3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.

    (4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.

History: 2012, Act 371, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “” MCL 691.1686(1). If the court orders arbitration, it must stay the judicial proceeding that involves the claim subject to arbitration.”
Est. of Abdel M Bazzy v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “1686(3) provides that “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.”
Arthur Breithaupt v. Howard Melam Fam. Lp (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “” Under MCL 691.1686(2), the circuit court “shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
John L Roseman v. Gwen Weiger (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “” Fromm v Meemic Ins Co, 264 Mich App 302, 305 ; 690 NW2d 528 (2004); see also MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “[MCL 691.1686(2) and (3).] These provisions may be modified by contract.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “[MCL 691.1686(2) and (3).] These provisions may be modified by contract.”
Vascular Mgmt. Servs. of Novi LLC v. Emg Partners LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Specifically, MCL 691.1686 states, in relevant part: (1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law…”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” MCL 691.1686(2) and (3). “To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt…”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” MCL 691.1686(2) and (3). “To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt…”
the Caden Companies Inc v. Mj Steps (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
the Caden Companies Inc v. Mj Steps (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Stephen Skalnek v. Richard Skalnek (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” MCL 691.1686(1). “The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1686(1) — 11 cases
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 691.1686(1). If the court orders arbitration, it must stay the judicial proceeding that involves the claim subject to arbitration.”
Theater Grp. 3 LLC v. Secura Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Spence Bros. v. Kirby Steel Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Spence Bros. v. Kirby Steel Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Stephen Skalnek v. Richard Skalnek (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” MCL 691.1686(1). “The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1686(2) — 25 cases
Arthur Breithaupt v. Howard Melam Fam. Lp (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” Under MCL 691.1686(2), the circuit court “shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” MCL 691.1686(2) and (3). “To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt…”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” MCL 691.1686(2) and (3). “To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt…”
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 691.1686(1). If the court orders arbitration, it must stay the judicial proceeding that involves the claim subject to arbitration.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “[MCL 691.1686(2) and (3).] These provisions may be modified by contract.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1686(3) — 10 cases
Est. of Abdel M Bazzy v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “1686(3) provides that “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.”
Arthur Breithaupt v. Howard Melam Fam. Lp (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” Under MCL 691.1686(2), the circuit court “shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
John L Roseman v. Gwen Weiger (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” Fromm v Meemic Ins Co, 264 Mich App 302, 305 ; 690 NW2d 528 (2004); see also MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
the Caden Companies Inc v. Mj Steps (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
the Caden Companies Inc v. Mj Steps (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 691.1686(2) (“The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1686(4) — 2 cases
Allie T Mallad v. Lefty's Holdings LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Allie T Mallad v. Lefty's Holdings LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
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.