Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 211 / Act 206 of 1893
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140 (2026)

Repealed. 2001, Act 94, Eff. Dec. 31, 2003.

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

THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ACT


Act 206 of 1893


211.140 Repealed. 2001, Act 94, Eff. Dec. 31, 2003.

    Repealed. 2001, Act 94, Eff. Dec. 31, 2003.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to writ of assistance or other process for possession of property obtained by tax sale.

PopularName Notes:

Act 206
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1949–2006 · leading case: Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “141(1) when read with MCL 211.140. Under this construction, Bond could no longer redeem the property after its mortgage was discharged, even though Bond’s right to notice continued under the strict compliance doctrine.”
Equivest Ltd. P'ship v. Brooms, 656 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “Defendants answered and, as an affirmative defense, claimed that they were not properly notified of their six-month redemption right under MCL 211.140. Plaintiff then moved for summary disposition, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding that the Wayne County…”
Detroit Leasing Co. v. City of Detroit, 713 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Defendant argues that the certificate does not constitute a valid affidavit sufficient to satisfy MCL 211.”
City of Detroit v. Walker, 520 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198." [14] The plaintiff notes: In 1987, the Michigan Legislature amended the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.”
Andre v. Fink, 447 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “It was defendants’ responsibility to comply with the notice provision as set forth in MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198, including checking the records of the register of deeds.”
Ottaco, Inc v. Guaze, 574 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “See MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. After the six-month period expired without a redemption, Equivest conveyed its title to Ottaco by quitclaim deed.”
Ottaco, Inc. v. Kalport Dev. Co., Inc., 607 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. We will refer to this notice as “the six-month notice,” as the parties have done.”
Halabu v. Behnke, 541 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Section 140 of the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.140; MSA *601 7.198. Although the statute also requires a tax sale purchaser to serve notice on the holders of any undischarged recorded liens, Alpha did not notify the United States government of its tax sale purchase.”
Matter of Sabec, 137 B.R. 659 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 3× “§ 211.140(1). The notice must state that: (1) the sale was lawfully made; (2) the tax sale purchaser has title to land under a tax deed issued; (3) the person receiving notice is entitled to a reconveyance of the land within six months after return of the service of notice (i.”
Cont'l Paper & Supply Co. v. City of Detroit, 545 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 211.140; M.S.A. § 7.198. [10] See M.C.L.”
City of Flint v. Takacs, 449 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Both the circuit court and the record owners posited that claimants of title through the dnr deed failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198, thus rendering the title defective.”
Chilton's, Inc. v. Wilmington Apt. Co., 112 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 1961). · cites it 4× “" *246 Section 140 of the general property tax law of the State [*] (CL 1948, § 211.140 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.198]) requires as a condition prerequisite to the issuance of a tax deed to the purchaser at a tax sale that there shall have been filed with the county clerk of the…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(1) — 7 cases
Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “141(1) when read with MCL 211.140. Under this construction, Bond could no longer redeem the property after its mortgage was discharged, even though Bond’s right to notice continued under the strict compliance doctrine.”
Andre v. Fink, 447 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “It was defendants’ responsibility to comply with the notice provision as set forth in MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198, including checking the records of the register of deeds.”
Equivest Ltd. P'ship v. Brooms, 656 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Defendants answered and, as an affirmative defense, claimed that they were not properly notified of their six-month redemption right under MCL 211.140. Plaintiff then moved for summary disposition, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding that the Wayne County…”
Matter of Sabec, 137 B.R. 659 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “§ 211.140(1). The notice must state that: (1) the sale was lawfully made; (2) the tax sale purchaser has title to land under a tax deed issued; (3) the person receiving notice is entitled to a reconveyance of the land within six months after return of the service of notice (i.”
City of Flint v. Takacs, 449 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Both the circuit court and the record owners posited that claimants of title through the dnr deed failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198, thus rendering the title defective.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(2) — 2 cases
Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “141(1) when read with MCL 211.140. Under this construction, Bond could no longer redeem the property after its mortgage was discharged, even though Bond’s right to notice continued under the strict compliance doctrine.”
Matter of Sabec, 137 B.R. 659 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “§ 211.140(1). The notice must state that: (1) the sale was lawfully made; (2) the tax sale purchaser has title to land under a tax deed issued; (3) the person receiving notice is entitled to a reconveyance of the land within six months after return of the service of notice (i.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(3) — 1 case
Ottaco, Inc. v. Kalport Dev. Co., Inc., 607 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. We will refer to this notice as “the six-month notice,” as the parties have done.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(5) — 1 case
Equivest Ltd. P'ship v. Brooms, 656 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Defendants answered and, as an affirmative defense, claimed that they were not properly notified of their six-month redemption right under MCL 211.140. Plaintiff then moved for summary disposition, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding that the Wayne County…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(6) — 1 case
Youngblood v. DEC Props., 516 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(7) — 1 case
Ottaco, Inc. v. Kalport Dev. Co., Inc., 607 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. We will refer to this notice as “the six-month notice,” as the parties have done.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(l)(a) — 2 cases
Andre v. Fink, 447 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “It was defendants’ responsibility to comply with the notice provision as set forth in MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198, including checking the records of the register of deeds.”
Ottaco, Inc. v. Kalport Dev. Co., Inc., 607 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. We will refer to this notice as “the six-month notice,” as the parties have done.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.140(l)(d) — 2 cases
Burkhardt v. Bailey, 680 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “141(1) when read with MCL 211.140. Under this construction, Bond could no longer redeem the property after its mortgage was discharged, even though Bond’s right to notice continued under the strict compliance doctrine.”
Ottaco, Inc. v. Kalport Dev. Co., Inc., 607 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 211.140; MSA 7.198. We will refer to this notice as “the six-month notice,” as the parties have done.”
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.