LAND DIVISION ACT
Act 288 of 1967
560.229 Preparation and form of new plat; filing copies; caption; approval; distribution of copies; fees.
Sec. 229.
(1) If the court orders a plat to be vacated, corrected, or revised in whole or in part, the court shall also direct plaintiff to prepare, in the form required by this act for a final plat, either a new plat of the part of the subdivision affected by the judgment or a new plat of the entire subdivision if the court's judgment affects a major part of the subdivision.
(2) Five true copies of the new plat, accompanied by a copy of the court's judgment, shall be filed with the director of the department of energy, labor, and economic growth. The caption of the new plat shall include a statement that it is a corrected or revised plat of all or part of the same subdivision covered by the original plat.
(3) After the director of the department of energy, labor, and economic growth has examined the new or amended plat for compliance with the court judgment and the provisions of this act for the making and filing of original final plats and has approved the new or amended plat, the director of the department of energy, labor, and economic growth shall distribute 1 copy each to the register of deeds, clerk of the municipality, county treasurer, and county road commission. One copy shall be filed in the office of the director of the department of energy, labor, and economic growth.
(4) Fees for recording and filing documents as required by this section shall be the same as for an original final plat.
History: 1967, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 367, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1978 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 63, Imd. Eff. May 6, 2010
PopularName Notes:
Plat Act
PopularName Notes:
Subdivision Control
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1974–2018 · leading case:
Beach v. Lima Twp., 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011).
Beach v. Lima Twp., 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011).
· cites it 12× “29 These parties include the owners of record title of each lot or parcel of land within 300 feet of the lands described for vacation or revision; the municipality where the plat is 9 MCL 560.229 requires a plaintiff to record the judgment after the entry of an order for…”
Martin v. Beldean, 677 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. 2004).
“The reason is that MCL 560.229 requires that a plaintiff who obtains a court order to vacate, correct, or amend a plat must obtain a new plat and have it filed with the State Treasurer.”
Feldman v. Monroe Twp. Bd., 216 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“430(101) through MCLA 560.229; MSA 26.430(229). This Court agrees with the lower court’s determination that unfortunately these provisions emerged prematurely from the legislative drafting process.”
Sroka v. State Treasurer, 426 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendant argues only that the circuit court erred in not ordering the preparation of the new plat as required under §229(1) of the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.229(1); MSA 26.430(229)(1). We agree.”
Twp. of Hayes v. Robert Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Paragraph 12 of the amended consent judgment states that the plaintiffs “must prepare and file, within 90 days of this Judgment’s entry, an amended plat” of the various portions of the plat that had been vacated “in accordance with MCL 560.229 and this Judgment.” Paragraph 15 of…”
John L Smeltzer v. Ferne Root Daigle (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“221 through MCL 560.229. Defendant’s argument is without merit because the prescriptive easement judgment did not change the plat.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.229(1) — 3 cases
Beach v. Lima Twp., 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011).
“29 These parties include the owners of record title of each lot or parcel of land within 300 feet of the lands described for vacation or revision; the municipality where the plat is 9 MCL 560.229 requires a plaintiff to record the judgment after the entry of an order for…”
Sroka v. State Treasurer, 426 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendant argues only that the circuit court erred in not ordering the preparation of the new plat as required under §229(1) of the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.229(1); MSA 26.430(229)(1). We agree.”
Twp. of Hayes v. Robert Fowler (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Paragraph 12 of the amended consent judgment states that the plaintiffs “must prepare and file, within 90 days of this Judgment’s entry, an amended plat” of the various portions of the plat that had been vacated “in accordance with MCL 560.229 and this Judgment.” Paragraph 15 of…”
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.