STILLE-DEROSSETT-HALE SINGLE STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE ACT
Act 230 of 1972
125.1512 Inspection of construction; consent; time; inspectors; notice of violation; stop order; injunction.
Sec. 12.
(1) An enforcing agency shall periodically inspect all construction undertaken pursuant to a building permit issued by it to insure that the construction is performed in accordance with conditions of the building permit and is consistent with requirements of the code and other applicable laws and ordinances.
(2) The owner of premises on which a building or structure is being constructed is deemed to have consented to inspection by the enforcing agency and the commission of the entire premises and of any construction being performed on it until a certificate of use and occupancy has been issued. An inspector, or team of inspectors, on presentation of proper credentials, may enter and inspect the premises and construction thereon, for purposes of insuring compliance with the building permit, the code and other applicable laws and regulations. An inspection shall be made between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on business days, or when construction is actually being undertaken, except if the enforcing agency has probable cause to believe that an immediate danger to life, limb or property exists, or except with permission of an owner, or his agent, architect, engineer or builder. An inspection pursuant to this section shall be solely for purposes of enforcing this act and other laws and ordinances related to construction of buildings and structures. A person other than the owner, his agent, architect, engineer or builder shall not accompany an inspector or team of inspectors on an inspection, unless his presence is necessary for the enforcement of this act, or other laws and ordinances related to construction of the building or structure, or except with the consent of an owner, or his agent, architect, engineer or builder.
(3) If construction is being undertaken contrary to a building permit, this act, or other applicable laws or ordinances, the enforcing agency shall give written notice to the holder of the building permit, or if a permit has not been issued then to the person doing the construction, notifying him of the violation of this act, or other applicable laws and ordinances, and to appear and show cause why the construction should not be stopped. If the person doing the construction is not known, or cannot be located with reasonable effort, the notice may be delivered to the person in charge of, or apparently in charge of, the construction. If the holder of the permit or the person doing the construction fails to appear and show good cause within 1 full working day after notice is delivered, the enforcing agency shall cause a written order to stop construction to be posted on the premises. A person shall not continue, or cause or allow to be continued, construction in violation of a stop construction order, except with permission of the enforcing agency to abate the dangerous condition or remove the violation, or except by court order. If an order to stop construction is not obeyed, the enforcing agency may apply to the circuit court for the county in which the premises are located for an order enjoining the violation of the stop construction order. This remedy is in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other remedy provided by law or ordinance, and does not prevent criminal prosecution for failure to obey the order.
(4) Without limitation on other available remedies, an interested person may apply for an order, enjoining the continuation of construction undertaken in violation of a building permit, this act, the code or other applicable laws or ordinances, to the circuit court for the county in which the premises are located.
History: 1972, Act 230, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973
PopularName Notes:
Act 230
PopularName Notes:
Uniform Construction Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
George Paeth v. Worth Twp., 483 F. App'x 956 (6th Cir. 2012).
George Paeth v. Worth Twp., 483 F. App'x 956 (6th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The Paeths received no notice of a hearing before the order was posted, a requirement under Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1512 (3): “If construction is being undertaken contrary to a building permit, .”
Paeth v. Worth Twp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 753 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1512 (3) (“If construction is being undertaken contrary to a building permit, .”
W. Cas. & Sur. Grp. v. Coloma Twp., 364 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“MCL 125.1512; MSA 5.2949(12). A building shall not be used or occupied until a certification of occupancy has been issued by the appropriate enforcing agency.”
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2023).
· cites it 6× “LAWS § 125.1512; and then citing MICH. ADMIN. CODE r.”
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 5× “Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that Defendant Krentz1 intends to assert that his warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s property was permitted by Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 125.1512(2)2 and 333.12514.3 Id. at PageID.”
Cnty. of Livingston v. Bank of New York Mellon (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Where construction is being undertaken contrary to a building permit, the SSCCA, or other applicable laws or ordinances, or without a permit, MCL 125.1512(3) authorizes an enforcing agency to provide written notices to the person doing the construction explaining the violations…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“He argued that the only issues in dispute were three issues of law: (1) whether the township possessed the “authority to demand mold[-]related permits, inspections, and remediation”; (2) whether the township could “lawfully refuse to perform inspections at the [property] in…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“He argued that the only issues in dispute were three issues of law: (1) whether the township possessed the “authority to demand mold[-]related permits, inspections, and remediation”; (2) whether the township could “lawfully refuse to perform inspections at the [property] in…”
Phil Forner v. Bureau of Constr. Codes (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“4302, nothing in the boiler rules transfers to the boiler installer any of the owner’s 4 Forner also claims that he was entitled to notice of the violations under MCL 125.1512(3), which falls within the Stille-Derossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act (CCA), MCL 125.”
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Harvey and Alcona County issued the Stop Work Order in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Michigan Compiled Laws § 125.1512(3). ECF No. 1 at PageID.10. Plaintiffs also contend that the Stop Work Order…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1512(1) — 2 cases
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“He argued that the only issues in dispute were three issues of law: (1) whether the township possessed the “authority to demand mold[-]related permits, inspections, and remediation”; (2) whether the township could “lawfully refuse to perform inspections at the [property] in…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“He argued that the only issues in dispute were three issues of law: (1) whether the township possessed the “authority to demand mold[-]related permits, inspections, and remediation”; (2) whether the township could “lawfully refuse to perform inspections at the [property] in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1512(2) — 2 cases
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that Defendant Krentz1 intends to assert that his warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s property was permitted by Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 125.1512(2)2 and 333.12514.3 Id. at PageID.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1512(3) — 4 cases
Cnty. of Livingston v. Bank of New York Mellon (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Where construction is being undertaken contrary to a building permit, the SSCCA, or other applicable laws or ordinances, or without a permit, MCL 125.1512(3) authorizes an enforcing agency to provide written notices to the person doing the construction explaining the violations…”
Phil Forner v. Bureau of Constr. Codes (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“4302, nothing in the boiler rules transfers to the boiler installer any of the owner’s 4 Forner also claims that he was entitled to notice of the violations under MCL 125.1512(3), which falls within the Stille-Derossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act (CCA), MCL 125.”
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Harvey and Alcona County issued the Stop Work Order in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Michigan Compiled Laws § 125.1512(3). ECF No. 1 at PageID.10. Plaintiffs also contend that the Stop Work Order…”
Mockeridge v. Harvey (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that Defendant Krentz1 intends to assert that his warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s property was permitted by Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 125.1512(2)2 and 333.12514.3 Id. at PageID.”
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.