Relief from a Michigan judgment: six grounds, and a separate year for a defendant who never knew
Michigan procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Michigan's relief-from-judgment rule has a provision that most states lack and that answers the most common real-world situation: a defendant who was properly served in law but never actually knew the case existed.
That is subrule (B), and it operates on its own terms, with its own year.
The defendant who did not know
MCR 2.612(B):
Defendant Not Personally Notified. A defendant over whom personal jurisdiction was necessary and acquired, but who did not in fact have knowledge of the pendency of the action, may enter an appearance within 1 year after final judgment, and if the defendant shows reason justifying relief from the judgment and innocent third persons will not be prejudiced, the court may relieve the defendant from the judgment, order, or proceedings for which personal jurisdiction was necessary, on payment of costs or on conditions the court deems just.
Read the premise carefully: personal jurisdiction was necessary and acquired. This is not an argument that service failed. It assumes service was legally good — and addresses the defendant who nevertheless "did not in fact have knowledge of the pendency of the action."
The requirements:
| Element | What it means |
|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction acquired | Service was legally sufficient |
| No actual knowledge of the pendency of the action | The factual position, not a legal defect |
| Enter an appearance within 1 year after final judgment | The deadline |
| Reason justifying relief | A substantive showing |
| No prejudice to innocent third persons | Protects intervening rights |
| Possible conditions | Payment of costs or other just conditions |
This is the right route where substituted service was properly made at an address you had left, or where papers were left with someone who never passed them on. Arguing excusable neglect in that situation concedes something you do not need to concede.
The six grounds
MCR 2.612(C)(1):
On motion and on just terms, the court may relieve a party or the legal representative of a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding on the following grounds:
(a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (b) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under MCR 2.611(B). (c) Fraud (intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. (d) The judgment is void. (e) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application. (f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
One year — for three of them
MCR 2.612(C)(2):
The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and, for the grounds stated in subrules (C)(1)(a), (b), and (c), within one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Except as provided in MCR 2.614(A)(1), a motion under this subrule does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
| Ground | Outer limit |
|---|---|
| (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect | 1 year |
| (b) newly discovered evidence | 1 year |
| (c) fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct | 1 year |
| (d) void judgment | reasonable time only |
| (e) satisfied, released, discharged, or no longer equitable | reasonable time only |
| (f) any other reason justifying relief | reasonable time only |
And note the cross-reference at the end: the motion does not suspend the judgment "except as provided in MCR 2.614(A)(1)" — which is where any automatic stay lives. That is the rule to read if you need enforcement paused, because MCR 2.612 itself gives you nothing.
Choosing between (B), (C)(1)(a) and (C)(1)(d)
These three cover overlapping ground and are often confused:
| If… | Use |
|---|---|
| Service was legally defective | (C)(1)(d) — void, no one-year cap |
| Service was good but you never knew | (B) — 1 year from final judgment, appearance route |
| You knew and missed the deadline | (C)(1)(a) — excusable neglect, 1 year |
The distinction between (B) and (d) is the one worth getting right. (d) says the court never had power. (B) accepts that it did, and asks for relief anyway. They are not alternatives to be pleaded interchangeably — but where the facts are unclear, both can be raised.
Which rule do you actually want?
Michigan has three separate post-judgment routes and they run on different clocks:
| What you are attacking | Rule | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| A decision on a motion | MCR 2.119(F) | 21 days from entry |
| A non-final order, before final judgment | MCR 2.604(A) | none |
| A final judgment or order | MCR 2.612 | 1 year on (a)–(c); reasonable time otherwise |
Filing under 2.612 when 2.604(A) was available — or missing 2.119(F)'s 21 days when that was the right vehicle — are the two common errors. See Michigan's motion for reconsideration, where the palpable-error standard and the no-response rule apply.
If a garnishment is running
The motion does not stop collection. A Michigan garnishment objection runs on its own 14-day clock from service of the writ, on form MC 49 — see objecting to a Michigan garnishment.
Running both is usually right: the objection protects exempt money now, and the MCR 2.612 motion attacks the judgment behind it.
How Michigan compares
| Michigan | Minnesota | Wisconsin | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outer limit, mistake / excusable neglect | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year |
| Void judgment time-limited | no | no | no | no |
| Route for a defendant who never knew | yes — (B), 1 year, by appearance | yes — Rule 4.043 | — | — |
| That route requires a service defect | no | — | — | — |
| Conditions available | payment of costs, or as just | just terms | just terms | just terms |
| Motion suspends the judgment | no, except MCR 2.614(A)(1) | no | no | no |
A short checklist
- Ask first whether you actually knew about the case. If not, subrule (B) is the cleaner route and it does not require a service defect.
- Check whether service was legally good. If not, (C)(1)(d) applies and carries no one-year cap.
- Count one year from entry for grounds (a), (b) and (c).
- Move within a reasonable time regardless.
- Under (B), enter an appearance within one year of final judgment and be ready to show a reason justifying relief and the absence of prejudice to innocent third persons.
- Expect conditions. Subrule (B) contemplates payment of costs.
- Check MCR 2.614(A)(1) if you need enforcement stayed; 2.612 does not do it.
- Make sure 2.612 is the right rule — 2.119(F) and 2.604(A) cover different targets on different clocks.
Where these rules live
- MCR 2.119 — Motion Practice
- MCR 2.603 — Default and Default Judgment
- MCR 2.604 — Judgment in Actions Involving Multiple Claims or Parties
- MCR 2.611 — New Trials; Amendment of Judgments
- MCR 2.612 — Relief from Judgment or Order
- MCR 2.614 — Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment
This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and what amounts to a reason justifying relief under MCR 2.612(B) is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.