Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 328.234 (2026)

Action to force compliance; damages; orders.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

PREPAID FUNERAL AND CEMETERY SALES ACT

Act 255 of 1986

328.234 Action to force compliance; damages; orders.

Sec. 24.

The department or any other person, in order to force compliance with this act, may bring an action in a circuit court in any county in which the registrant or any other person has solicited or sold prepaid contracts, whether or not that person has purchased a prepaid contract or is personally aggrieved by a violation of this act. The court may award damages, issue equitable orders in accordance with the Michigan court rules to restrain conduct in violation of this act, and award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party.

History: 1986, Act 255, Eff. July 1, 1987 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 21, Eff. Jan. 1, 2005

Compiler's Notes:

For transfer of powers and duties of certain occupational functions, boards, and commissions from the Department of Licensing and Regulation to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1991-9, compiled at MCL 338.3501 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Margaret Gathright v. Mission Hills Mem'l Gardens (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Margaret Gathright v. Mission Hills Mem'l Gardens (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “218(1), and sought enforcement and damages under MCL 328.234. Plaintiffs further alleged that C Management was negligent in its management and operation of the Cemetery and breached its duty owed to plaintiffs to secure Margaret’s burial plot beside her late husband by…”

Christian Mem'l Cultural Ctr., Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, 998 F. Supp. 772 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp.Laws § 328.234. 2 . Plaintiff offers the argument, based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in USS-POSCO Indus.”

Lara v. Proteccion Plenitud Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “MCL 328.234 provides: The department or any other person, in order to force compliance with this act, may bring an action in a circuit court in any county in which the registrant or any other person has solicited or sold prepaid contracts, whether or not that person has…”

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.