30 June 2026
/ Jeffrey K. Bearss
Rebutting Attacks on Alternate Service in Michigan - What Creditors Need To Know
Currently making the rounds on the internet are false motions to quash service/motions to dismiss based on alleged lack of service in Michigan cases, which debtors are filing with courts with increased frequency on a reflexive, mechanical basis. Detroit Attorney Jeffrey Bearss shares the following in response.
All that Michigan law requires is that a defendant be reasonably notified that an action has been filed against them. Under Michigan law the standard is not perfection. Defendants improperly allege lack of due diligence in serving lawsuits on them in their attempt to avoid liability. They object to alternate service, and file motions to dismiss and motions to quash service. Michigan Courts have ruled against them. The Michigan Court Rule of Alternate Service, MCR 2.105, also provides otherwise. MCR 2.105 is not new law. It has been the law in Michigan for over sixty years. Currently codified as MCR 2.105(J) under the Michigan Court Rules of 1985, the Rule of Alternate Service is the same rule found in the Michigan GCR (General Court Rules) going back to 1963, being GCR 105 and GCR 106.1 (1963). It allows for alternate service when people move and cannot be served, or people who are dodging service. In it, MCR 2.105(J) only requires a showing that service cannot be reasonably made, and that courts only require service to be made in any other reasonable manner, not all manners, nor every manner. The Michigan Court of Appeals in Ickes v. Korte ruled that due diligence means undertaking reasonable, good-faith measures under the circumstances, not necessarily undertaking everything possible.
This is only a summary of what can be done to defeat frivolous motions to quash service and motions to dismiss. For a complete description of all your collection remedies, or to learn more about Weltman's Solutions, feel free to contact Attorney Jeffrey Bearss and the Weltman team can provide you with detailed information. If you have questions about the collection of past due accounts, it can help to discuss the matter with legal counsel.
This blog is not a solicitation for business, and it is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters, create an attorney-client relationship or be legally binding in any way.
All that Michigan law requires is that a defendant be reasonably notified that an action has been filed against them. Under Michigan law the standard is not perfection. Defendants improperly allege lack of due diligence in serving lawsuits on them in their attempt to avoid liability. They object to alternate service, and file motions to dismiss and motions to quash service. Michigan Courts have ruled against them. The Michigan Court Rule of Alternate Service, MCR 2.105, also provides otherwise. MCR 2.105 is not new law. It has been the law in Michigan for over sixty years. Currently codified as MCR 2.105(J) under the Michigan Court Rules of 1985, the Rule of Alternate Service is the same rule found in the Michigan GCR (General Court Rules) going back to 1963, being GCR 105 and GCR 106.1 (1963). It allows for alternate service when people move and cannot be served, or people who are dodging service. In it, MCR 2.105(J) only requires a showing that service cannot be reasonably made, and that courts only require service to be made in any other reasonable manner, not all manners, nor every manner. The Michigan Court of Appeals in Ickes v. Korte ruled that due diligence means undertaking reasonable, good-faith measures under the circumstances, not necessarily undertaking everything possible.
The Court of Appeals stated:
“We adopt the definition of ‘due diligence’ set forth in other contexts: due diligence means undertaking reasonable, good-faith measures under the circumstances, not necessarily undertaking everything possible... Thus, the bare fact that a party could have expended greater efforts is irrelevant."
This is only a summary of what can be done to defeat frivolous motions to quash service and motions to dismiss. For a complete description of all your collection remedies, or to learn more about Weltman's Solutions, feel free to contact Attorney Jeffrey Bearss and the Weltman team can provide you with detailed information. If you have questions about the collection of past due accounts, it can help to discuss the matter with legal counsel.
This blog is not a solicitation for business, and it is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters, create an attorney-client relationship or be legally binding in any way.
