Legal Opinion

Birznieks v. Cooper

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1979No. Docket 58849PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.

In summary proceedings to recover real property, a writ of restitution may not issue pursuant to a judgment for possession because of nonpayment of money by a tenant or land contract vendee if, "within the time” prescribed by the statute, the amount of the judgment is "paid” to the plaintiff. 1

The issue is whether Thomas L. Cooper "paid” Peter and Ella Birznieks the amounts stated in judgments for possession when he mailed personal checks for those amounts to the Birznieks’ lawyer on the last day of the time prescribed.

The district court held that the amounts so stated had not been duly paid.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. People v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Perin v. PeulerMichigan Supreme Court · 1964
  3. In re 1976 PA 267Michigan Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Kutsche v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. United Securities Corporation v. FranklinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1962

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Flynn v KorneffelMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
  3. In Re CarrUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1985
  4. Matcha v. WachsArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  5. In Re SpradlinUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1999

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API