Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 29 / Act 207 of 1941
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 29.23 (2026)

Fire hazard as nuisance; abatement; action; procedure; order or decree; condition; injunction; jurisdiction; cost and expense of abatement; continuance of hearing.

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

FIRE PREVENTION CODE


Act 207 of 1941


29.23 Fire hazard as nuisance; abatement; action; procedure; order or decree; condition; injunction; jurisdiction; cost and expense of abatement; continuance of hearing.

Sec. 23.

    The existence of a fire hazard, of any nature, origin, or cause, is a nuisance and the nuisance may be abated, removed, corrected, and its continuance enjoined in the manner provided by law for the abatement of nuisances. If the state fire marshal determines that a fire hazard is imminently dangerous or menacing to human life and the public safety requires its immediate abatement, removal, correction, or discontinuance, the state fire marshal may bring, or cause to be brought, in the circuit court of the county in which the fire hazard is located, an action to abate, remove, correct, or discontinue the fire hazard. Sections 3801 to 3840 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3801 to 600.3840, apply to the action. The court, in addition to the powers conferred by that act, may make any order it determines is necessary or expedient to ensure the safety and security of human life, and may direct that a building described in the complaint be razed and removed and all rubbish and debris removed, or that the building be repaired and in what manner and to what extent. The court may order the removal of occupancies of a building and the discontinuance of any use of the building that constitute a fire hazard or menace to human life, and may order the clearing and improvement of premises described in the complaint. The court may issue an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing the existence of a fire hazard, may include specific directions to the defendant, and may retain jurisdiction to compel complete performance of the order, writ, or other determination of the court. The court may direct that the abatement of the fire hazard be done by the department under the court's instructions, and with provision for defraying the cost and expense of the abatement as the court determines equitable and authorized by this act. A continuance of a hearing under this act shall not be granted except upon a clear showing of unavoidable circumstances. Jurisdiction of the court under this act does not depend upon the amount of money, or value of property, involved.

History: 1941, Act 207, Imd. Eff. June 16, 1941 ;-- CL 1948, 29.23 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 199, Imd. Eff. Jan. 11, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 3, Imd. Eff. Feb. 7, 1978 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 19, 2006

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of certain authority, powers, functions, and responsibilities of the state fire marshal and the fire marshal division of the department of state police to the director of the department of labor and economic growth, bureau of construction codes and fire safety, by type II transfer, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “In an opinion issued on April 27, 2004, this Court determined that the trial court did have jurisdiction to appoint the receiver pursuant to MCL 29.23. However, *504 this Court agreed with Kircher that the order appointing the receiver was overbroad: By giving the receiver the…”
Kircher v. City of Ypsilanti, 458 F. Supp. 2d 439 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 9× “, seeking to abate an alleged nuisance on Plaintiffs Cross Street property that purportedly constituted a “fire hazard” under Mich. Comp. Laws § 29.23 . This case was assigned to Defendant Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Donald Shelton.”
Attorney Gen. v. Ankersen, 385 N.W.2d 658 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “MCL 29.23; MSA 4.559(23). Plaintiffs proceeded against the landowners under both section 16 and section 23 of the Fire Prevention Code, MCL 29.”
People of Michigan v. John MacAuley Burkman (Mich. 2024). “, MCL 29.23 (“The court may order the removal of occupancies of a building and the discontinuance of any use of the building that constitutes a fire hazard or menace to human life .”
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.