Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.536 (2026)

Additional remedies; occupant's action; concurrent remedies.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

HOUSING LAW OF MICHIGAN

Act 167 of 1917

125.536 Additional remedies; occupant's action; concurrent remedies.

Sec. 136.

(1) When the owner of a dwelling regulated by this act permits unsafe, unsanitary or unhealthful conditions to exist unabated in any portion of the dwelling, whether a portion designated for the exclusive use and occupation of residents or a part of the common areas, where such condition exists in violation of this act, any occupant, after notice to the owner and a failure thereafter to make the necessary corrections, shall have an action against the owner for such damages he has actually suffered as a consequence of the condition. When the condition is a continuing interference with the use and occupation of the premises, the occupant shall also have injunctive and other relief appropriate to the abatement of the condition.

(2) Remedies under this section shall be in addition to such other relief as may be obtained by seeking enforcement of the section authorizing suits by a local enforcement agency. The remedies shall be concurrent. When several remedies are available hereunder, the court may order any relief not inconsistent with the objectives of this act, and calculated to achieve compliance with it.

History: Add. 1968, Act 286, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “401 (applying the housing law to certain classes of municipalities) and MCL 125.536 (stating that an occupant has a cause of action under the housing law), we hold that MCL 125.”

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Thorn, 258 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. 1977). · cites it 2× “While this common-law rule has been abrogated in its applicability to leases for residential dwellings with the enactment of 1968 PA 286 , §136, MCLA 125.536; MSA 5.2891(16), 2 the rule has been left unchanged in its applicability to leases for commercial premises.”

McDowell v. City of Detroit, 690 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “While the housing code itself, specifically MCL 125.536, creates a cause of action by an occupant of a dwelling against the owner for damages, injunctive relief, or other relief for violation of the code, defendants were engaged in the “the exercise or discharge of a.”

Kandice Holder v. Anchor Bay Investments Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “According to plaintiff, she noticed that these wooden steps eventually became “algaefied” and were slippery.”

Ramadan v. Home Depot, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 7× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.536 provides that “[w]hen the owner of a dwelling regulated by [the housing law of Michigan] permits unsafe, unsanitary or unhealthful conditions to exist unabated in any portion of the dwelling, .”

20250124_C365585_62_365585.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “Additionally, plaintiff asserted that by failing to remove the snow and ice, defendants violated their statutory duties under the HLM, relevant here, MCL 125.536 (owner of a dwelling permits unsafe, unsanitary or unhealthful conditions to exist unabated in any portion of the…”

Nagam Nabil Jamel v. Wbr Kings Arms LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “MCL 125.536(1) The next statutory duty plaintiff argues defendant violated, or at least created a genuine issue of material fact on that issue, is the duty created by MCL 125.”

Abdalla Qamer v. Sterling Knolls Apts. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “MCL 125.536 (1). The relevance of this is unclear, as plaintiff did not bring a claim against defendant under the housing law of Michigan, and made no attempt to satisfy the required elements of MCL 125.”

Duane Morrish v. Sun Communities Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “An “occupant” may have a cause of action under MCL 125.536 contained in the Housing Law of Michigan, MCL 125.”

Rosalie Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Additionally, defendants contended that even if it did, MCL 125.536 only concerns portions of a “dwelling,” and the Chambers’ porch was not within any portion of the dwelling.”

20241125_C368649_51_368649D.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated MCL 125.536(1), which states: When the owner of a dwelling regulated by this act permits unsafe, unsanitary or unhealthful conditions to exist unabated in any portion of the dwelling, whether a portion designated for…”

Starr Stimpson v. Gfi Mgmt. Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “It argued that snow and ice did not render a parking lot unfit for its intended use under MCL 554.139(1)(a) and that MCL 554.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.536(1) — 8 cases

Kandice Holder v. Anchor Bay Investments Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “According to plaintiff, she noticed that these wooden steps eventually became “algaefied” and were slippery.”

Nagam Nabil Jamel v. Wbr Kings Arms LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “MCL 125.536(1) The next statutory duty plaintiff argues defendant violated, or at least created a genuine issue of material fact on that issue, is the duty created by MCL 125.”

20241125_C368649_51_368649D.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated MCL 125.536(1), which states: When the owner of a dwelling regulated by this act permits unsafe, unsanitary or unhealthful conditions to exist unabated in any portion of the dwelling, whether a portion designated for…”

Abdalla Qamer v. Sterling Knolls Apts. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 125.536 (1). The relevance of this is unclear, as plaintiff did not bring a claim against defendant under the housing law of Michigan, and made no attempt to satisfy the required elements of MCL 125.”

Rosalie Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Additionally, defendants contended that even if it did, MCL 125.536 only concerns portions of a “dwelling,” and the Chambers’ porch was not within any portion of the dwelling.”

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.