Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 280.152 (2026)

Apportionment of benefits; description of lands.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

THE DRAIN CODE OF 1956

Act 40 of 1956

280.152 Apportionment of benefits; description of lands.

Sec. 152.

All apportionments of benefits under the provisions of this act shall be upon the principle of benefits derived. All descriptions of land under the provisions of this act shall be made by giving the legal subdivision thereof, whenever practicable, and when the tract of land which is to be benefited or affected by such drain is less than such legal subdivision it may be described by designation of the lot or other boundaries, or in some way by which it may be known.

History: 1956, Act 40, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1956

PopularName Notes:

Act 40

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1969–2014 · leading case: Elba Twp. v. Gratiot Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 831 N.W.2d 204 (Mich. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elba Twp. v. Gratiot Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 831 N.W.2d 204 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “” MCL 280.152. The assessment of taxes to pay for the drain work is then based on these percentage apportionments.”

Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “While the Drain Code provides that "[a]ll apportionments of benefits under the provisions of this act shall be upon the principle of benefits derived", MCL 280.152; MSA 11.1152, it permits a levy of an entire municipality's share of a special assessment against the municipality,…”

Romulus City Treasurer v. Wayne Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 322 N.W.2d 152 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “, MCL 280.152; MSA 11.1152. [9] Cf. Foren v Royal Oak, 342 Mich 451, 456 ; 70 NW2d 692 (1955).”

Battjes Builders v. Kent Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 167 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “” MCLA § 280.152 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 11-.1152).”

Ray v. Mason Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 210 N.W.2d 810 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “In other words, the test in all special taxation or assessment proceedings which is constantly invoked by the courts, is that the assessment should not exceed the special benefit to the property.”

Charter Twp. of Lansing v. Groesbeck Park Drain Bd of Review (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “151 and MCL 280.152. There is no statutory or other authority dictating that apportionments may be based on whether the benefit derived has a dollar value that matches the apportioned portion of the cost of a given drain.”

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.