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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255 (2026)

Lot numbers use.

✓ 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


560.255 Lot numbers use.

Sec. 255.

    When a subdivision plat has been recorded, the lots in that plat shall be described by the caption of the plat and the lot number for all purposes, including those of assessment, taxation, sale and conveyance.

History: 1967, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968

PopularName Notes:

Plat Act

PopularName Notes:

Subdivision Control
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2007–2020 · leading case: Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (In Re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (In Re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 7× “First, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 560.255 does not use the word “may” in requiring that lots in a recorded plat “shall be described ” by reference to the plat and lot number “for all purposes, including those of .”
Tibble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Hudson), 455 B.R. 648 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 4× “2009) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 560.255 ) (emphasis in original), ajfd.”
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Richardson (In Re Brandt), 434 B.R. 493 (W.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 5× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255 provides: When a subdivision plat has been recorded, the lots in that plat shall be described by the caption of the plat and the lot number for all purposes, including those of assessment, taxation, sale and conveyance.”
Tomecek v. Bavas, 740 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× ““When a subdivision plat has been recorded, the lots in that plat shall be described by the caption of the plat and the lot number for all purposes, including those of assessment, taxation, sale and conveyance.”
Scott C Saunders v. Jeffrey J Rhodes (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “The trial court further explained that there was no evidence that the plattors in this case reserved any rights to any land between Lot 1 and the shoreline when Pickerel Point was platted. The trial court also concluded that because the disputed property was part of Lot 1…”
Tomecek v. Bavas, 740 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “"When a subdivision plat has been recorded, the lots in that plat shall be described by the caption of the plat and the lot number for all purposes, including those of assessment, taxation, sale and conveyance.”
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.