Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.73 (2026)

Enhancement in value as consideration in determining compensation; complaint; compensation; requiring agency to acquire portion claimed to be enhanced; burden of proof.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

THE UNIFORM CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES ACT

Act 87 of 1980

213.73 Enhancement in value as consideration in determining compensation; complaint; compensation; requiring agency to acquire portion claimed to be enhanced; burden of proof.

Sec. 23.

(1) Enhancement in value of the remainder of a parcel, by laying out, altering, widening, or other types of improvement; by changing the scope or location of the improvement; or by either action in combination with discontinuing an improvement, shall be considered in determining compensation for the taking.

(2) When enhancement in value is to be considered in determining compensation, the agency shall set forth in the complaint the fact that enhancement benefits are claimed and describe the construction proposed to be made which will create the enhancement. If the construction is not completed in substantial compliance with the plan upon which the agency based its claim of enhancement benefits, the owner may reopen the question of compensation within 1 year after the termination of construction. If the construction is not in substantial compliance, the owner is entitled to the difference between the value of the property as affected by the actual construction and the value of the property as it would have been, had construction been completed according to plan. The owner shall not recover more compensation than would have been payable if there was not a claim of enhancement benefits.

(3) Upon demand of the owner before trial, the court may require the agency to acquire that portion of the remainder of the tract which the agency claims to be enhanced if the agency claims enhancement. This subsection shall not apply if the agency withdraws its claim of enhancement benefits before trial.

(4) The agency has the burden of proof with respect to the existence of enhancement benefits.

History: 1980, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 8, 1980

Compiler's Notes:

Former MCL 213.71 to 213.94, deriving from Act 124 of 1883 and pertaining to the taking of property by cities, villages, and counties, were repealed by Act 120 of 1967.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1954–2005 · leading case: Dep't of Transp. v. Haggerty Corridor Partners Ltd. P'ship, 700 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dep't of Transp. v. Haggerty Corridor Partners Ltd. P'ship, 700 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 20× “§ 213.73, which allows enhancement in value of the remainder of a partially condemned parcel to be considered in determining just compensation, was inapplicable and did not serve to permit MDOT to introduce this evidence because MDOT did not plead in its complaint that…”

Silver Creek Drain Dist. v. Extrusions Div., Inc, 630 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 213.73 directs that enhancements to remaining portions of a condemned tract must be considered in determining just compensation.”

Miller Bros. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “See MCL 213.73; MSA 8.265(23). In this case, the value of plaintiffs’ property outside the protected area has been enhanced by the director’s order, because it has been developed sooner than it would have been absent the taking.”

In Re John C. Lodge High., 65 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. 1954). “The provisions of PA 1883, No 124, § 3 (CL 1948, § 213.73 [Stat Ann § 8.45]) and of the Detroit city charter, title 8, eh 1, § 3, make it mandatory that persons “in possession” of condemned premises be named as parties defendant in a city’s petition.”

Dep't of Transp. v. Rossi, 401 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “The statute has been repealed; however, substantially similar language now appears in MCL 213.73; MSA 8.45.”

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.