Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139 (2026)
Lease or license of residential premises; covenants; modifications; liberal construction, inspection.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
554.139 Lease or license of residential premises; covenants; modifications; liberal construction, inspection.
Sec. 39.
(1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants:
(a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.
(b) To keep the premises in reasonable repair during the term of the lease or license, and to comply with the applicable health and safety laws of the state and of the local unit of government where the premises are located, except when the disrepair or violation of the applicable health or safety laws has been caused by the tenants wilful or irresponsible conduct or lack of conduct.
(2) The parties to the lease or license may modify the obligations imposed by this section where the lease or license has a current term of at least 1 year.
(3) The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed, and the privilege of a prospective lessee or licensee to inspect the premises before concluding a lease or license shall not defeat his right to have the benefit of the covenants established herein.
History: Add. 1968, Act 295, Eff. Oct. 1, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 185
cases (55 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008).
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Benton v. Dart Props. Inc., 715 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “] In light of O’Donnell , if defendant breached its duties under MCL 554.139, defendant would be liable to plaintiff even if the ice on the sidewalk was open and obvious.”
Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts., 740 N.W.2d 547 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Because the slippery condition of the parking lot where the fall occurred was open and obvious and no special aspect making the condition unreasonably dangerous existed, and because defendant could not rely on the open and obvious danger doctrine to avoid its statutory duty…”
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Buhalis’s argument that the trial court erred when it dismissed her claim premised on the duty imposed on landlords under MCL 554.139(1). Our Supreme Court has held that MCL 554.”
Wilson v. Taylor, 577 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. 1998). “In determining the amount due under a tenancy the jury or judge shall deduct any *106 portion of the rent which the jury or judge finds to be excused by the plaintiff's breach of the lease or by his breach of 1 or more statutory covenants imposed by section 39 of chapter 66 of…”
O'DONNELL v. Garasic, 676 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Following this Court’s published opinion in Woodbury (On Remand), on second application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ordered: In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination whether the…”
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 736 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 554.139 provides, in relevant part: (1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.”
1300 Lafayette East Coop., Inc v. Savoy, 773 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In determining the amount due under a tenancy the jury or judge shall deduct any portion of the rent which the jury or judge finds to be excused by the plaintiffs breach of the lease or by his breach of 1 or more statutory covenants imposed by section 39 of chapter 66 of the…”
Woodbury v. Bruckner, 650 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals is to determine, inter alia, (1) whether the covenant imposed by MCL 554.139 gave rise to a duty in tort, see Mobil Oil Corp v Thorn, 401 Mich 306, 311-312 (1977); (2) if so, whether defendants can avoid tort liability arising from MCL…”
Teufel v. Watkins, 705 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to address, his argument that Springs had a statutory duty under MCL 554.139 to keep its premises and common areas in reasonable repair and fit for their intended uses, which negates the defense of open and…”
Francescutti v. Fox Chase Condo. Ass'n, 886 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the negligence claim because defendant had a duty under MCL 554.139 to maintain the property in reasonable repair.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(1) — 62 cases
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Buhalis’s argument that the trial court erred when it dismissed her claim premised on the duty imposed on landlords under MCL 554.139(1). Our Supreme Court has held that MCL 554.”
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts., 740 N.W.2d 547 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Because the slippery condition of the parking lot where the fall occurred was open and obvious and no special aspect making the condition unreasonably dangerous existed, and because defendant could not rely on the open and obvious danger doctrine to avoid its statutory duty…”
Mullen v. Zerfas, 742 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(1)(A) — 1 case
Nagam Nabil Jamel v. Wbr Kings Arms LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(1)(B) — 1 case
Nagam Nabil Jamel v. Wbr Kings Arms LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(1)(a) — 104 cases
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Benton v. Dart Props. Inc., 715 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “] In light of O’Donnell , if defendant breached its duties under MCL 554.139, defendant would be liable to plaintiff even if the ice on the sidewalk was open and obvious.”
O'DONNELL v. Garasic, 676 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Following this Court’s published opinion in Woodbury (On Remand), on second application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ordered: In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination whether the…”
Teufel v. Watkins, 705 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to address, his argument that Springs had a statutory duty under MCL 554.139 to keep its premises and common areas in reasonable repair and fit for their intended uses, which negates the defense of open and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(1)(b) — 44 cases
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Est. of Buckner v. City of Lansing, 747 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. 2008).
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
O'DONNELL v. Garasic, 676 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Following this Court’s published opinion in Woodbury (On Remand), on second application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ordered: In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination whether the…”
Teufel v. Watkins, 705 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to address, his argument that Springs had a statutory duty under MCL 554.139 to keep its premises and common areas in reasonable repair and fit for their intended uses, which negates the defense of open and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(2) — 11 cases
Kircher v. City of Ypsilanti, 712 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Calef v. West, 652 N.W.2d 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Jackson v. Aloe (E.D. Mich. 2023).
Jackson v. Aloe (E.D. Mich. 2023).
Roger Wildbahn v. Kmg Prestige Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(2)(b) — 1 case
Kandice Holder v. Anchor Bay Investments Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(3) — 16 cases
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Benton v. Dart Props. Inc., 715 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “] In light of O’Donnell , if defendant breached its duties under MCL 554.139, defendant would be liable to plaintiff even if the ice on the sidewalk was open and obvious.”
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 736 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 554.139 provides, in relevant part: (1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.”
Jackson v. Aloe (E.D. Mich. 2023).
Jackson v. Aloe (E.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(a)(1) — 1 case
Rosemary Cooper v. Civic Ctr. Willow Tree LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(a)(b) — 1 case
Susan Herrera v. Sun Troy Villa LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(b) — 1 case
Susan Herrera v. Sun Troy Villa LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(l)(a) — 8 cases
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Benton v. Dart Props. Inc., 715 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “] In light of O’Donnell , if defendant breached its duties under MCL 554.139, defendant would be liable to plaintiff even if the ice on the sidewalk was open and obvious.”
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts., 740 N.W.2d 547 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Because the slippery condition of the parking lot where the fall occurred was open and obvious and no special aspect making the condition unreasonably dangerous existed, and because defendant could not rely on the open and obvious danger doctrine to avoid its statutory duty…”
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 736 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 554.139 provides, in relevant part: (1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.139(l)(b) — 5 cases
Allison v. Aew Capital Mgmt., LLP, 751 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2008). “[2] MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC, 782 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “"MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees and licensees of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.”
Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts., 740 N.W.2d 547 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Because the slippery condition of the parking lot where the fall occurred was open and obvious and no special aspect making the condition unreasonably dangerous existed, and because defendant could not rely on the open and obvious danger doctrine to avoid its statutory duty…”
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 736 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 554.139 provides, in relevant part: (1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.”
Robinson v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1990).
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.