Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 230 of 1972
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1523 (2026)

Unlawful conduct; penalty; separate offenses; retention of fine by governmental subdivision; designation of violation as municipal civil infraction.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

STILLE-DEROSSETT-HALE SINGLE STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE ACT


Act 230 of 1972


125.1523 Unlawful conduct; penalty; separate offenses; retention of fine by governmental subdivision; designation of violation as municipal civil infraction.

Sec. 23.

    (1)  Except as provided in subsection (3), a person or corporation, including an officer, director, or employee of a corporation, or a governmental official or agent charged with the responsibility of issuing permits or inspecting buildings or structures, who does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both:

    (a) Knowingly violates this act or the code or a rule for the enforcement of this act or code.

    (b) Knowingly constructs or builds a structure or building in violation of a condition of a building permit.

    (c) Knowingly fails to comply with an order issued by an enforcing agency, a construction board of appeals, a board, or the commission pursuant to this act.

    (d) Knowingly makes a false or misleading written statement, or knowingly omits required information or a statement in an inspection report, application, petition, request for approval, or appeal to an enforcing agency, a construction board of appeals, a board, or the commission.

    (e) Knowingly refuses entry or access to an inspector lawfully authorized to inspect any premises, building, or structure pursuant to this act.

    (f) Unreasonably interferes with an authorized inspection.

    (g) Knowingly issues, fails to issue, causes to be issued, or assists in the issuance of a certificate, permit, or license in violation of this act or a rule promulgated under this act or other applicable laws.

    (h) Having a duty to report violations of this act or a rule promulgated under this act or other applicable laws, knowingly conceals a violation.

    (2) With respect to subsection (1)(c), a person is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the person fails to comply with a stop construction order validly issued by an enforcing agency and for each week that the person fails to comply with any other order validly issued by an enforcing agency. With respect to subsection (1)(a) or (d), a person is guilty of a separate offense for each knowing violation of this act or a rule promulgated under this act and for each false or misleading written statement or omission of required information or statement knowingly made in an application, petition, request for approval, or appeal to an enforcing agency, a construction board of appeals, a board, or the commission. With respect to subsection (1)(b), a person is guilty of a separate offense for each knowing violation of a condition of a building permit.

    (3) If a governmental subdivision has the responsibility of administering and enforcing this act and prosecutes a violation of this act, the governmental subdivision may retain a fine imposed upon conviction. If a governmental subdivision has the responsibility of administering and enforcing this act, the governmental subdivision may by ordinance designate a violation described in subsection (1) or (2) as a municipal civil infraction and provide a civil fine for the violation. The governmental subdivision may retain the civil fine imposed upon judgment.

History: 1972, Act 230, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 442, Imd. Eff. Oct. 9, 1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 371, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1980 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 22, Eff. May 1, 1994

PopularName Notes:

Act 230

PopularName Notes:

Uniform Construction Code

AdminRule Notes:

    R 408.30101 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2009 · leading case: Cummins v. Robinson Twp., 770 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cummins v. Robinson Twp., 770 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 125.1523(l)(g). In light of this statutory scheme, we conclude that fairness is not offended by placing the burden on plaintiffs to appeal perceived economically impracticable and unnecessary building requirements rather than proceed to incur the expenses and later seek…”
Rakowski v. Sarb, 713 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 125.1504(1) and (3)(c). Though the act sets forth certain criminal penalties for an “agent charged with the responsibility of issuing permits or inspecting buildings or structures” who “knowingly” violates the act or a code, or who “knowingly” makes a false or misleading…”
Northville Twp. v. Coyne, 429 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “See MCL 125.1523(l)(b); MSA 5.2949(23)(l)(b), made mandatory by MCL 125.”
Moore v. City of Detroit, 382 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “No public hearing is required. Finally, since Ord. 556-H does not conflict with the State Construction Code Act, defendants will not be subject to the penalties prescribed under § 23 of the act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1523(1) — 1 case
Rakowski v. Sarb, 713 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 125.1504(1) and (3)(c). Though the act sets forth certain criminal penalties for an “agent charged with the responsibility of issuing permits or inspecting buildings or structures” who “knowingly” violates the act or a code, or who “knowingly” makes a false or misleading…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1523(l)(b) — 1 case
Northville Twp. v. Coyne, 429 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “See MCL 125.1523(l)(b); MSA 5.2949(23)(l)(b), made mandatory by MCL 125.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1523(l)(g) — 1 case
Cummins v. Robinson Twp., 770 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 125.1523(l)(g). In light of this statutory scheme, we conclude that fairness is not offended by placing the burden on plaintiffs to appeal perceived economically impracticable and unnecessary building requirements rather than proceed to incur the expenses and later seek…”
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.