Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 560 / Act 288 of 1967
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.101 (2026)

Short title.

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

LAND DIVISION ACT


Act 288 of 1967


560.101 Short title.

Sec. 101.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "land division act".

History: 1967, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 591, Eff. Mar. 31, 1997

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of powers and duties of the State Treasurer relative to subdivision control to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1980-1, compiled at MCL 16.732 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

TransferOfPowers Notes:

    See MCL 16.732.

PopularName Notes:

Plat Act

PopularName Notes:

Subdivision Control
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 98 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Beach v. Lima Twp., 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beach v. Lima Twp., 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 6× “We hold that an action that seeks to establish a substantive property right arises independently of an LDA action to vacate, correct, or revise a recorded plat.”
Tomecek v. Bavas, 759 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] MCL 560.101 et seq. [2] Plaintiffs' property is shown as "2" on the map at the end of this opinion.”
2000 Baum Fam. Trust v. Babel, 793 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “255b for the requirements for withdrawals by plat proprietors in a statutory dedication under the current platting statute, the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.101 et seq. 8 Kraus, 451 Mich at 431 , citing Lee, 14 Mich at 18 .”
White v. City of Ann Arbor, 281 N.W.2d 283 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “These claims were based on the theory that CATV had no right to utilize property designated as a public utility easement and that it had trespassed on plaintiff's property by stringing aerial wires from poles owned by Detroit Edison which were implanted in land designated as a…”
Altman v. Meridian Twp., 487 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “We address in this case the authority of a local governing body to disapprove a proposed subdivision plat pursuant to the Subdivision Control Act (SCA), MCL 560.101 et seq.; MSA 26.430(101) et seq.”
Morse v. Colitti, 896 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “, the plat act of 1967, MCL 560.101 et seq. MCL 560.253(1) provides, *543 in relevant part, that a dedication is deemed to convey the dedicated property in fee simple to the recipients of the dedication.”
Polkton Charter Twp. v. Pellegrom, 693 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “On August 7, 2002, defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff violated the Michigan Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., because it failed to give written notice of the reasons why three parcels were not approved for division, and defendant claimed an appeal from…”
Little v. Hirschman, 677 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “2 The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that the Martin case involved a 1969 dedication that was controlled by the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 *557 et seq., whereas the Court was considering a 1913 plat that was controlled by earlier statutes.”
Eastbrook Homes, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 820 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “, and Land Division Act, MCL 560.101, et seq., and tort liability.”
Wiggins v. City of Burton, 805 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “According to the City, because the Wiggins had not proceeded in accordance with certain requirements set forth in the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., their mislabeled quiet-title claim *543 should be dismissed.”
Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977). · cites it 2× “, the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, confers duties upon county platting boards, state, city and county health departments, county drain commissions, the departments of state highways and treasury, the water resources commission, county road commissions, state conservation…”
Cont'l Cablevision of Michigan, Inc v. City of Roseville, 425 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “[20] "[T]he classification of property for purposes of ad valorem taxation, and the income tax laws and regulations relating to depreciation deductions, are based on entirely different concepts.”
Show all 98 citing cases →
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.