Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9 (2026)

Incorporation, consolidation, or change of boundaries; governing law; affected district; petition or resolution for annexation; voting; duties of commission.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE HOME RULE CITY ACT

Act 279 of 1909

117.9 Incorporation, consolidation, or change of boundaries; governing law; affected district; petition or resolution for annexation; voting; duties of commission.

Sec. 9.

(1) In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this act and 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1001 to 123.1020, regarding an incorporation or consolidation, the provisions of 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1001 to 123.1020, shall govern. The district to be affected by the proposed incorporation, consolidation, or change of boundaries is considered to include the whole of each city, village, or township from which territory is to be taken or to which territory is to be annexed. When a territory is proposed to be incorporated as a city only the residents of the territory to be incorporated shall vote on the question of incorporation. When a petition signed by the appropriate agency designated by the state administrative board which holds legal title to the entire area of the land in the territory adjacent to the city to be annexed, is filed with the governing body of the city and township in which the territory is situated, the annexation may be accomplished by the affirmative majority vote of the governing body of the city and the approval of the township board of the township.

(2) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (8), a petition or resolution for annexation of territory shall be filed with the state boundary commission created under 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1001 to 123.1020. The commission, after determining the validity of the petition or resolution, shall hold a public hearing in or reasonably near the area proposed for annexation. The commission in processing and approving, denying, or revising a petition or resolution for annexation shall have the same powers and duties as provided under 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1001 to 123.1020, relating to petitions which propose incorporations. In addition to providing notice to property owners located in the area proposed for annexation, the commission shall also give notice of each public hearing held under this subsection to property owners located within 300 feet of the area proposed for annexation by certified mail not less than 30 days before the date of the public hearing. Not less than 45 days before the date of the public hearing, the local unit of government capable of producing the information required under this section shall provide the state boundary commission with a list of the names and addresses of all persons the commission is required to provide notice to under this subsection. The commission is required to provide notice only to the property owners included on the list provided by the local unit of government as required under this section.

(3) If an annexation is denied by the commission, the commission shall send a certified copy of its order to the clerk of each county, city, village, and township affected.

(4) If an annexation is approved, and if on the date the petition or resolution was filed 100 persons or less resided in the area approved for annexation, the commission's order shall not be subject to a referendum. The commission shall send a certified copy of its order to the clerk of each county, city, village, and township affected and to the secretary of state. The annexation shall be effective on a date set forth in the commission's order.

(5) If an annexation is approved, and if on the date the petition or resolution was filed more than 100 persons resided in the area approved for annexation, the commission shall send a certified copy of its order to the clerk of each county, city, village, and township affected and to the secretary of state. The commission's order shall become final 30 days after the date of the order unless within that 30 days a petition is filed with the commission which contains the signatures of at least 25% of the registered electors residing in the portion of the territory approved for annexation, in the annexing city or in the balance of the township. The commission after verifying the validity of any referendum petition shall order that a referendum on the question of annexation be held in each area from which a valid petition was filed. If a valid petition is not filed within the 30 days or if the majority of the electorate voting on the question in each area in which a referendum was held, voting separately, approve the annexation, the annexation shall be effective on a date set by order of the commission, otherwise the annexation shall not take effect.

(6) The commission shall reject a petition or resolution for annexation of territory that includes all or any part of the territory which was described in any petition or resolution for annexation filed within the preceding 2 years and which was denied by the commission or was defeated in an election under subsection (5).

(7) In addition to the methods for initiating annexation as provided in this act, a petition or resolution as follows may be submitted to the state boundary commission in a form and manner prescribed by the commission:

(a) By resolution of the legislative body of the city to which the area is proposed to be annexed.

(b) By petition by the persons, firms, corporations, the United States government, or the state or any of its subdivisions who collectively hold equitable title as a vendee under a recorded land contract or memorandum of land contract, or record title to 75% or more of the area of the land exclusive of streets in the territory proposed for annexation at the time of filing the petition.

(8) Where the territory proposed to be annexed to any city is adjacent to the city and consists of a park or vacant property located in a township and owned by the city annexing the territory, and there is no one residing in the territory, the territory may be annexed to the city solely by resolution of the city council of the city. In any case where the territory proposed to be annexed is adjacent to the city and consists of property owned by the city or consists of fractional parts of platted subdivision lots, located in an adjoining city, village, or township, the annexation may also be accomplished by the majority vote of the legislative body of the city and the approval of the legislative body of the adjoining city, village, or township. As an alternate method, where there are no qualified electors residing in the territory proposed to be annexed to the city, other than the person or persons petitioning, a petition signed by a person or persons, firms, corporations, the United States government, or the state or any of its subdivisions who collectively hold the equitable title as a vendee under a recorded land contract or memorandum of land contract, or record legal title to more than 1/2 of the area of the land in the territory to be annexed is filed with the city council of the city and with the township board of the township in which the territory is situated, the annexation may be accomplished by the affirmative majority vote of the city council of the city and the approval of the township board of the township. At least 10 days prior to the approval by the township board, the township treasurer shall notify, personally or by registered mail with return receipt demanded, the owners of all real property in the territory to be annexed as shown on the assessment rolls of the township at the last known address on file with the township treasurer. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall not be construed to give any city the authority to attach territory from any other city unless the question relative to the territory has been voted upon by the voters of the entire cities affected where the territory proposed to be annexed is adjacent to a city and consists of property owned by the city or consists of fractional parts of platted subdivision lots, located in an adjoining city.

(9) The provisions of section 14 shall not be applicable to an annexation approved by the commission of part of a township or village to a city except in the event of outstanding bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the township or village. In such event, the commission shall determine and order an equitable division of assets and liabilities which relate to the bonds or other indebtedness.

(10) The provisions of sections 8 and 8a shall not be applicable to petitions or resolutions filed with the state boundary commission.

(11) After March 31, 1971, and so long as 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1001 to 123.1020, is in effect, annexation of territory from a township or village to a home rule city shall be as provided in this section and no other means of annexation shall be effective.

(12) The state boundary commission shall mail a copy of any final order issued under this section to each property owner the commission is required to provide notice to under subsection (2).

History: 1909, Act 279, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 3312 ;-- Am. 1917, Act 225, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- Am. 1925, Act 337, Eff. Aug. 27, 1925 ;-- CL 1929, 2245 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 314, Imd. Eff. June 16, 1931 ;-- Am. 1935, Act 48, Imd. Eff. May 6, 1935 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 36, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 334, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 117.9 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 58, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 68, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 219, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 352, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 137, Imd. Eff. June 10, 2004

Constitutionality Notes:

This section, the enabling legislation which grants the state boundary commission authority over annexation petitions or resolutions, is constitutional. Midland Township v State Boundary Commission, 401 Mich 641; 259 NW2d 326 (1977).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases, 1954–2017 · leading case: Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 12× “[20] MCL 117.9 (emphasis added). [21] See brief of city of Holland at 9-10.”

Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977). · cites it 11× “Our disposition makes it unnecessary to consider the townships' contentions that these amendments do not cure the constitutional infirmity of the 1970 amendment as it relates to the 1968 act and the home rule cities act, and that such amendments can only operate prospectively…”

Rudolph Steiner Sch. v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 605 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “2088(11), which provides that after March 31, 1971, and as long as the boundary commission act is in effect, “annexation of territory from a township or village to a home rule city shall be as provided in this section and no other means of annexation shall be effective.”

Charter Twp. of Pittsfield v. City of Saline, 302 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “After purchasing the property, the city attempted to annex the land by a resolution of its city council under MCL 117.9(8); MSA fi^OSS^). 1 Pittsfield filed its complaint in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, seeking to void the annexation on the grounds that the city was not the…”

Casco Twp. v. Sec'y of State, 682 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “[9] The individual plaintiffs, among others, then signed a petition, pursuant to MCL 117.9, to detach the land from Richmond and return it to Columbus and Casco Townships.”

Rental Props. Owners Ass'n v. Kent Cnty. Treasurer, 308 Mich. App. 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The transaction was repeated one month later to exclude a portion of the property that had included buildings in violation of MCL 117.9(8). Id. at 562-563 . The defendant city admitted “that the sole purpose of its purchase of the parcel was to permit annexation of the parcel…”

Bloomfield Charter Twp. v. Oakland Cnty. Clerk, 654 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” The township ignores, however, that in affirming this Court’s deci *34 sion in Owosso Twp , the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that “the judicial requirement of ‘contiguity’ in municipal annexation” applied by this Court had been superseded by the Legislature’s enactment…”

Shelby Charter Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 387 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 9× “MCL 117.9; MSA 5.2088. While the petition was pending before the commission, 1978 PA 242 and 1978 PA 591 , amending MCL 42.”

Oshtemo Twp. v. City of Kalamazoo, 257 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 5× “prevented the city from having sufficient ownership to annex the property pursuant to MCLA 117.9; MSA 5.2088. Defendant City of Kalamazoo appeals.”

Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “MCL 123.1008(1) and (3). After the hearing, the Commission may deny or approve the petition, or approve the petition with revisions.”

Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 894 N.W.2d 758 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “at 650, citing 1970 PA 219 ; MCL 117.9. Certain plaintiffs challenged the legislation, arguing inter alia, that the 1970 HRCA annexation amendment violated art 4, § 25, because the Legislature did not reenact and republish certain portions of the BCA act of 1968.”

Casco Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 622 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “2242(lla), setting forth procedures, provides, “The commission shall have jurisdiction over petitions or resolutions for annexation as provided in [MCL 117.9; MSA 5.2088].” MCL 124.29; MSA 5.”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(1) — 9 cases

Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005). “[20] MCL 117.9 (emphasis added). [21] See brief of city of Holland at 9-10.”

Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977). “Our disposition makes it unnecessary to consider the townships' contentions that these amendments do not cure the constitutional infirmity of the 1970 amendment as it relates to the 1968 act and the home rule cities act, and that such amendments can only operate prospectively…”

Casco Twp. v. Sec'y of State, 682 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “[9] The individual plaintiffs, among others, then signed a petition, pursuant to MCL 117.9, to detach the land from Richmond and return it to Columbus and Casco Townships.”

Rudolph Steiner Sch. v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 605 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “2088(11), which provides that after March 31, 1971, and as long as the boundary commission act is in effect, “annexation of territory from a township or village to a home rule city shall be as provided in this section and no other means of annexation shall be effective.”

Meridian Charter Twp. v. Ingham Cnty. Clerk, 777 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(11) — 5 cases

Shelby Charter Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 387 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. 1986). “MCL 117.9; MSA 5.2088. While the petition was pending before the commission, 1978 PA 242 and 1978 PA 591 , amending MCL 42.”

Charter Twp. of Meridian v. City of East Lansing, 300 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Williams Twp. v. City of Midland, 289 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

City of Rockwood v. State Boundary Comm'n, 206 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(2) — 10 cases

Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 123.1008(1) and (3). After the hearing, the Commission may deny or approve the petition, or approve the petition with revisions.”

Casco Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 622 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “2242(lla), setting forth procedures, provides, “The commission shall have jurisdiction over petitions or resolutions for annexation as provided in [MCL 117.9; MSA 5.2088].” MCL 124.29; MSA 5.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(3) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(4) — 4 cases

Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005). “[20] MCL 117.9 (emphasis added). [21] See brief of city of Holland at 9-10.”

Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 236 N.W.2d 551 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Fillmore Twp v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2005).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(5) — 4 cases

Rutland Twp. v. City of Hastings, 321 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1982).

Williams Twp. v. City of Midland, 289 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(6) — 5 cases

Avon Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 293 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

St Joseph Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 300 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Rutland Twp. v. City of Hastings, 321 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1982).

Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 499 Mich. 949 (Mich. 2016).

Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(7) — 1 case

City of Rockwood v. State Boundary Comm'n, 206 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(7)(c) — 1 case

Bloomfield Charter Twp. v. Oakland Cnty. Clerk, 654 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “” The township ignores, however, that in affirming this Court’s deci *34 sion in Owosso Twp , the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that “the judicial requirement of ‘contiguity’ in municipal annexation” applied by this Court had been superseded by the Legislature’s enactment…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(8) — 10 cases

Charter Twp. of Pittsfield v. City of Saline, 302 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “After purchasing the property, the city attempted to annex the land by a resolution of its city council under MCL 117.9(8); MSA fi^OSS^). 1 Pittsfield filed its complaint in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, seeking to void the annexation on the grounds that the city was not the…”

Rental Props. Owners Ass'n v. Kent Cnty. Treasurer, 308 Mich. App. 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The transaction was repeated one month later to exclude a portion of the property that had included buildings in violation of MCL 117.9(8). Id. at 562-563 . The defendant city admitted “that the sole purpose of its purchase of the parcel was to permit annexation of the parcel…”

Pittsfield Twp. v. City of Ann Arbor, 274 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Clinton Twp. v. City of Mount Clemens, 429 N.W.2d 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.9(9) — 3 cases

Union Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 428 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

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.