Statute of Limitations for Unjust Enrichment / Restitution in Michigan

5 min read

Published April 8, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Overview

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Statute Of Limitations calculator.

In Michigan, the statute of limitations (SOL) for many unjust enrichment / restitution-style recovery claims is generally 6 years, based on MCL § 767.24(1).

Because unjust enrichment and restitution can be pleaded in different ways (often described as “equitable” claims), Michigan courts may analyze the timing based on the substance of the claim and its governing law rather than automatically applying a single, claim-type-specific clock. For DocketMath’s purposes, the practical takeaway is: start with the general/default 6-year SOL unless you have a specific, fact-driven reason to apply an exception (covered below).

Note: The content here addresses the general/default limitations period. If your situation involves a contract dispute, a claim with its own statutory limitations period, or a special procedural posture, the applicable SOL may differ from the unjust-enrichment default.

For a deadline estimate, use DocketMath’s calculator here: /tools/statute-of-limitations.

Limitation period

Michigan’s general limitations period is 6 years for these kinds of recovery efforts. A common way the rule is summarized is: file within 6 years from accrual.

How to think about accrual in timelines

When you’re estimating your deadline, focus on two date concepts:

Accrual date: when the claim became actionable (i.e., when the plaintiff could realistically file and seek relief).
Event/knowledge date: often tied to when the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known) the facts supporting the claim, or when a key payment/benefit event occurred.

Once you identify your accrual date, the basic estimate is:

Filing deadline ≈ accrual date + 6 years

Where disputes often arise

Even though the number “6 years” is straightforward, the start date can be contested. Examples of timeline friction points include:

When the plaintiff learned enough facts to support the claim (or should have done so)
When a repayment demand was made and how that fits with when the claim became actionable
Whether the court views the claim as a contract-based recovery versus an equitable restitution framing (which can affect how accrual is analyzed)

DocketMath helps you manage these timeline inputs by letting you model the deadline based on the accrual trigger you’re using.

Key exceptions

The general/default period is 6 years, but there are several common ways the timeline can change in practice. These are not automatic; they depend on facts, evidence, and how a court characterizes the claim.

1) Tolling (the clock may pause)

Tolling generally means the SOL period is paused (or otherwise delayed) due to a legally recognized circumstance. Examples can include situations involving legally recognized disabilities or other doctrines that interrupt the running of the limitations period.

Because tolling is highly fact-specific, DocketMath treats tolling as an optional modeling input—you should only apply it if you have a documented basis for tolling.

2) Accrual/discovery arguments (changing the start date)

Even with a fixed duration of 6 years, parties can argue about when accrual occurred. The key question often becomes:

When did the plaintiff know (or reasonably should have known) the facts that made the claim actionable?

If you can support a later accrual date, the modeled deadline can move accordingly—even though the length stays 6 years.

3) Different theories may change the applicable limitations analysis

A practical pitfall is assuming that every “restitution” request follows the same SOL rule. In Michigan, the limitations analysis may differ if the claim is substantively:

rooted in a statutory cause of action with its own SOL, or
tied to contract recovery principles with different limitation rules, rather than a purely restitution/unjust enrichment theory

Pitfall: Simply labeling a request “unjust enrichment” doesn’t guarantee that Michigan will apply the unjust enrichment default. Courts look to the substance and governing law.

Statute citation

Michigan’s general limitations period referenced for these recovery claims is:

MCL § 767.24(1) — 6 years (general/statutory limitations period)

DocketMath’s jurisdiction data for this page reflects:

Topic	Michigan rule used in DocketMath
General SOL period (default)	6 years
General statute	MCL § 767.24(1)
Claim-type-specific sub-rule	None found in the provided jurisdiction data; treat this as the default

Source used for the jurisdiction data: https://www.michigan.gov.

Use the calculator

Use DocketMath to compute a modeled deadline based on the default 6-year SOL under MCL § 767.24(1).

What to input

Typically, you’ll provide:

Accrual date (the date you believe the claim became actionable)
Optional: tolling assumptions only if you have a defensible basis for tolling to model a pause

How outputs change

DocketMath applies the following timeline logic:

SOL length is fixed at 6 years (default).
Deadline moves based on the accrual date you enter.
If you include tolling, the deadline may extend by the modeled amount of paused time.

Quick example (timeline math)

If your accrual date is January 1, 2020, then under the default 6-year SOL your modeled deadline is typically January 1, 2026—subject to accrual/discovery/tolling arguments and how the court characterizes the claim.

Primary CTA: /tools/statute-of-limitations

Gentle reminder: This is general planning information, not legal advice. If dates matter for a filing decision, consider getting help from a qualified attorney.