Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 565 / Act 92 of 1993
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.951 (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

SELLER DISCLOSURE ACT


Act 92 of 1993


565.951 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "seller disclosure act".

History: 1993, Act 92, Eff. Jan. 10, 1994

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Roberts v. Saffell, 760 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberts v. Saffell, 760 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “" We agree with defendants' argument that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq. Consequently, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for defendants.”
Bergen v. Baker, 691 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of statements or omissions in the seller’s disclosure statement, which necessarily requires us to focus on the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq. The seller disclosure requirements of the act “apply to the transfer of any interest in…”
Roberts v. Saffell, 766 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 2009). “Under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq., defendants were required to prepare a seller’s disclosure statement (SDS) regarding “the condition and information concerning the property, known by [sellers.”
Roberts v. Saffell, 763 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. 2009). “At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq.; (2) if not, whether the plaintiffs could nevertheless…”
Roseman v. Adams (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “After purchasing a home in Farmington Hills, Michigan, in 2016, plaintiff sued the sellers and their real estate agents in Oakland County Circuit Court for violating Michigan’s Seller Disclosure Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.951 et seq. by failing to make certain disclosures…”
Krassick v. Archaeological Inst. of Am. (W.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “5, 2013) (applying § 5813 to the Seller’s Disclosure Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.951 et seq.). Here, Krassick’s cause of action arises from a violation of the PPPA, which does not provide a limitation period.”
Brenda Ealey v. Benjigates Estates LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “965, which is part of the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq., provides: “An agent of a transferor shall not be liable for any violation of this act by a transferor unless any agent knowingly acts in concert with a transferor to violate this act.”
Marquette Prop. Grp. Inc v. Range Bank Na Tr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “f defendant had accepted plaintiff’s offer and the parties had reduced the agreement to a final, signed writing, the resulting contract would not fail for lack of mutuality of obligation between the parties, see Vulic v Dep’t of Treasury, 321 Mich App 471, 480-481 ; 909 NW2d 487…”
Edward Scott Kondrat v. Arnold Servitto (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “SILENT FRAUD Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing Count I of his first amended complaint because he sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for silent fraud, notwithstanding the fact that Count I was labeled as alleging a violation of the Michigan…”
John L Roseman v. Gwen Weiger (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Plaintiff alleged a violation of § 5 of the Seller Disclosure Act, MCL 565.951 et seq., fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and a violation of § 261 of the Land…”
Paul Locher v. Est. of Bradley M Zimmerman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Plaintiffs Paul and Patricia Locher appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendants of plaintiffs’ claim under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq., and their claims for silent-fraud and common-law fraud.”
Douglas Lancaster v. Cosmopolitan Homes Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “, and Dan Wicker (collectively “defendants”), following a jury trial in this action involving claims of fraud, innocent misrepresentation, silent fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the Seller’s Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq., arising from plaintiffs’ purchase…”
Show all 23 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.