Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 554 / Act 348 of 1972
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.613 (2026)

Action for damages; retention of security deposit; waiver.

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

LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIPS


Act 348 of 1972


554.613 Action for damages; retention of security deposit; waiver.

Sec. 13.

    (1) Within 45 days after termination of the occupancy and not thereafter the landlord may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a money judgment for damages which he has claimed or in lieu thereof return the balance of the security deposit held by him to the tenant or any amount mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. A landlord shall not be entitled to retain any portion of a security deposit for damages claimed unless he has first obtained a money judgment for the disputed amount or filed with the court satisfactory proof of an inability to obtain service on the tenant or unless:

    (a) The tenant has failed to provide a forwarding address as required by section 11.

    (b) The tenant has failed to respond to the notice of damages as required by section 12.

    (c) The parties have agreed in writing to the disposition of the balance of the deposit claimed by the landlord.

    (d) The amount claimed is entirely based upon accrued and unpaid rent equal to the actual rent for any full rental period or portion thereof during which the tenant has had actual or constructive possession of the premises.

    (2) This section does not prejudice a landlord's right to retain any security deposit funds as satisfaction or partial satisfaction of a money judgment obtained pursuant to summary proceedings filed pursuant to chapter 57 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended, being sections 600.5701 to 600.5759 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 or other proceedings at law. Failure of the landlord to comply fully with this section constitutes waiver of all claimed damages and makes him liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.

History: 1972, Act 348, Eff. Apr. 1, 1973

PopularName Notes:

Landlord-Tenant Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Hovanesian v. Nam, 539 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hovanesian v. Nam, 539 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “MCL 554.613; MSA 26.1138(13). Even if that were not the case, defendant neglected to commence an action for a money judgment on the amount in controversy within forty-five days after plaintiff terminated his occupancy.”
Lesatz v. Stand. Green Meadows, 416 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See MCL 554.613(1); MSA 26.1138(13)(1). In the future, defendants should make it clearer what amounts are being offset against the security deposit.”
Oak Park Vill. v. Gorton, 341 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “” MCL 554.613; MSA 26.1138(13). (Emphasis added.”
Tree City Props. LLC v. Eric Perkey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 15× “This Court explained further in Hovanesian that, after giving written notice of its intent to retain the security deposit, to avoid waiver of the right to retain a security deposit, the landlord must commence an action for a money judgment under MCL 554.613. Id. at 236 . MCL…”
Gabrielle Beebe v. Ag Mgmt. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “Under MCL 554.613, a landlord is not entitled to retain a security deposit without obtaining a money judgment, subject to certain exceptions, which include a tenant’s failure to respond to a 2 PSM, as owner of the subject property, is considered a “landlord” under MCL 554.”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
John Richards Homes Bldg. Co. v. Adell Broad. Corp. (In Re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co.), 402 B.R. 780 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “§ 554.613. According to JRH, all those statutes permit a plaintiff to recover more than simply its compensatory damage and, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court’s focus on the principle of “one injury, one recovery” in its opinion is incorrect given the statutory context.”
Penokie v. Colonial Townhouses Coop., Inc., 366 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “50 based on the *742 double-damages provision of MCL 554.613(2); MSA 26.1138(13X2). Defendant argues that, because a cooperative is significantly different from the traditional landlord-tenant situation, the LTRA does not apply.”
Iwanski v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (In re Iwanski), 477 B.R. 67 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “§ 554.613. The landlord may retain the portion of the security deposit necessary to satisfy any money judgment against the tenant.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.613(1) — 5 cases
Lesatz v. Stand. Green Meadows, 416 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “See MCL 554.613(1); MSA 26.1138(13)(1). In the future, defendants should make it clearer what amounts are being offset against the security deposit.”
Tree City Props. LLC v. Eric Perkey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “This Court explained further in Hovanesian that, after giving written notice of its intent to retain the security deposit, to avoid waiver of the right to retain a security deposit, the landlord must commence an action for a money judgment under MCL 554.613. Id. at 236 . MCL…”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
Gabrielle Beebe v. Ag Mgmt. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 554.613, a landlord is not entitled to retain a security deposit without obtaining a money judgment, subject to certain exceptions, which include a tenant’s failure to respond to a 2 PSM, as owner of the subject property, is considered a “landlord” under MCL 554.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.613(1)(c) — 1 case
Gabrielle Beebe v. Ag Mgmt. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Under MCL 554.613, a landlord is not entitled to retain a security deposit without obtaining a money judgment, subject to certain exceptions, which include a tenant’s failure to respond to a 2 PSM, as owner of the subject property, is considered a “landlord” under MCL 554.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.613(2) — 5 cases
Hovanesian v. Nam, 539 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “MCL 554.613; MSA 26.1138(13). Even if that were not the case, defendant neglected to commence an action for a money judgment on the amount in controversy within forty-five days after plaintiff terminated his occupancy.”
Tree City Props. LLC v. Eric Perkey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “This Court explained further in Hovanesian that, after giving written notice of its intent to retain the security deposit, to avoid waiver of the right to retain a security deposit, the landlord must commence an action for a money judgment under MCL 554.613. Id. at 236 . MCL…”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “613(2) provides that a landlord who fails to comply with MCL 554.613 is “liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.”
Penokie v. Colonial Townhouses Coop., Inc., 366 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “50 based on the *742 double-damages provision of MCL 554.613(2); MSA 26.1138(13X2). Defendant argues that, because a cooperative is significantly different from the traditional landlord-tenant situation, the LTRA does not apply.”
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.