HOUSING LAW OF MICHIGAN
Act 167 of 1917
125.401 Short title; scope of act.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "housing law of Michigan".
(2) This act applies to each city, village, and township that, according to the last regular or special federal census, has a population of 10,000 or more. However, this act does not apply to private dwellings and 2-family dwellings in any city, village, or township having a population of less than 100,000 unless the legislative body of the local governmental unit adopts the provisions by resolution passed by a majority vote of its members.
(3) This act applies to all dwellings within the classes defined in section 2, except that a reference to 1 or more specific classes of dwellings applies only to those classes to which specific reference is made.
History: 1917, Act 167, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- Am. 1919, Act 326, Imd. Eff. May 13, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 2487 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 303, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 91, Imd. Eff. May 16, 1941 ;-- CL 1948, 125.401 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 137, Imd. Eff. June 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 408, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2009 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 14, Eff. May 16, 2016
Compiler's Notes:
The catchlines following the act section numbers of this act were incorporated as a part of the act when enacted.
Notes of Decisions
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“471 applies to Trinity’s facility and to a guest of an occupant, see MCL 125.401 (applying the housing law to certain classes of municipalities) and MCL 125.”
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“For instance, provisions of the Michigan Housing Law, MCL 125.401 et seq., specifically allow hens against real property for costs related to municipal nuisance-abatement activities.”
Awad v. McColgan, 98 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. 1959).
· cites it 2× “1 The following appears in the opinion on motion for judgment non obstante veredicto: “I have not been successful in obtaining a clear-cut, unequivocal statement of plaintiffs’ position on this point [the relation of plaintiffs’ nuisance theory to the housing law, CL 1948, §…”
Sabaugh v. City of Dearborn, 185 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. 1971).
· cites it 4× “All of these statutes clearly pertain to housing within the State of Michigan: PA 1917, No 167 (MCLA § 125.401 et seq.; Stat Ann 1969 Rev § 5.”
Raatikka v. Jones, 265 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“However, prior to the date upon which defendant landlord in this case rendered the subject premises to plaintiff tenants, the City of Durand, in which the premises are located, enacted as an ordinance the Michigan housing law, 1917 PA 167 , as authorized by MCLA 125.401; MSA…”
Orion Charter Twp. v. Burnac Corp., 431 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Secondly, appellants claim that the trial court committed error by not requiring the township to follow the provisions of the Housing Law, MCL 125.401 et seq.; MSA 5.2771 et seq. Specifically, appellants claim that the township was required to comply with MCL 125.”
Roblyer v. Hoyt, 72 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1955).
“* For the State housing act, PA 1917, No 167, as amended, see CL 1948, § 125.401 et seq. (Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.”
Feldman v. Stein Bldg. & Lumber Co., 148 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).
“2 The initial consideration in resolving this issue is' the applicability of the Michigan housing law, CL 1948, § 125.401 et seq. (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.”
Mitchell v. Grewal, 61 N.W.2d 3 (Mich. 1953).
“It is insisted that on their face the plans show that the proposed alterations violate the housing law •of Michigan (CL 1948, § 125.401 et seq. [Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.”
Gossman v. Lambrecht, 221 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“Plaintiffs requested an instruction that if defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions created by ice and snow accumulations and failed to remove it to permit safe use by the tenants, then defendants were negligent as a mat *644 ter of law; and that…”
Heritage Hill Ass'n v. Kinsey, 381 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The court ruled from the bench that the above statute had been repealed but that, in any event, the court would not appoint a receiver in the exercise of its discretion. An order granting *805 summary judgment to defendants was entered on May 9, 1984.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.401(2) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.401(3) — 1 case
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.