ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Act 453 of 1976
37.2505 Condition, restriction, or prohibition limiting use or occupancy of real property; exceptions; inserting or honoring void provision.
Sec. 505.
(1) A condition, restriction, or prohibition, including a right of entry or possibility of reverter, that directly or indirectly limits the use or occupancy of real property on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, or marital status is void, except a limitation of use as provided in section 503(1)(c) or on the basis of religion relating to real property held by a religious institution or organization, or by a religious or charitable organization operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious institution or organization, and used for religious or charitable purposes.
(2) A person shall not insert in a written instrument relating to real property a provision that is void under this section or honor such a provision in the chain of title.
History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 170, Imd. Eff. June 18, 1980 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 124, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1992 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 6, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024
Notes of Decisions
Rosewood Vill. Phase II LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “2502(1), and by creating a restriction that indirectly limits the use or occupancy of apartments on the basis of race, MCL 37.2505. In Count VI, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s interpretation of the sign regulation constituted an unconstitutional taking of plaintiff’s…”
Stegeman v. City of Ann Arbor, 540 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the ordinance violates the prohibition on discrimination based on marital status under MCL 37.2505(1); MSA 3.548(505X1). We disagree.”
Dep't of Civil Rights v. Countryside Townhouses (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“is void, except a limitation of use as provided in section 503(1)(c) [pertaining to senior citizens or persons 50 years of age or older] or on the basis of religion relating to real property held by a religious institution or organization, or by a religious or charitable…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2505(1) — 3 cases
Stegeman v. City of Ann Arbor, 540 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the ordinance violates the prohibition on discrimination based on marital status under MCL 37.2505(1); MSA 3.548(505X1). We disagree.”
Rosewood Vill. Phase II LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“2502(1), and by creating a restriction that indirectly limits the use or occupancy of apartments on the basis of race, MCL 37.2505. In Count VI, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s interpretation of the sign regulation constituted an unconstitutional taking of plaintiff’s…”
Dep't of Civil Rights v. Countryside Townhouses (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“is void, except a limitation of use as provided in section 503(1)(c) [pertaining to senior citizens or persons 50 years of age or older] or on the basis of religion relating to real property held by a religious institution or organization, or by a religious or charitable…”
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.