Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.955 (2026)

Liability for error, inaccuracy, or omission; delivery as compliance with requirements of act; conditions.

✓ 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

565.955 Liability for error, inaccuracy, or omission; delivery as compliance with requirements of act; conditions.

Sec. 5.

(1) The transferor or his or her agent is not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission in any information delivered pursuant to this act if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the transferor, or was based entirely on information provided by public agencies or provided by other persons specified in subsection (3), and ordinary care was exercised in transmitting the information. It is not a violation of this act if the transferor fails to disclose information that could be obtained only through inspection or observation of inaccessible portions of real estate or could be discovered only by a person with expertise in a science or trade beyond the knowledge of the transferor.

(2) The delivery of any information required by this act to be disclosed to a prospective transferee by a public agency or other person specified in subsection (3) shall be considered to comply with the requirements of this act and relieves the transferor of any further duty under this act with respect to that item of information, unless the transferor has knowledge of a known defect or condition that contradicts the information provided by the public agency or the person specified in subsection (3).

(3) The delivery of a report or opinion prepared by a licensed professional engineer, professional surveyor, geologist, structural pest control operator, contractor, or other expert, dealing with matters within the scope of the professional's license or expertise, is sufficient compliance for application of the exemption provided by subsection (1) if the information is provided upon the request of the prospective transferee, unless the transferor has knowledge of a known defect or condition that contradicts the information contained in the report or opinion. In responding to a request by a prospective transferee, an expert may indicate, in writing, an understanding that the information provided will be used in fulfilling the requirements of section 7 and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts of disclosures, to which the information being furnished applies. In furnishing the statement, the expert is not responsible for any items of information other than those expressly set forth in the statement.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 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 32× “957] and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts of disclosures, to which the information being furnished applies.”

Bergen v. Baker, 691 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “MCL 565.955; MCL 565.956; MCL 565.960. The SDA clearly creates a legal duty of disclosure relative to the transaction in this case.”

Edward Scott Kondrat v. Arnold Servitto (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “, citing MCL 565.955, MCL 565.956, and MCL 565.960.”

Jessica Sherman v. Brar Bir-Inder Singh (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “[Bergen v Baker, 264 Mich App 376, 385 ; 691 NW2d 770 (2004), citing MCL 565.955, MCL 565.956, and MCL 565.960 (footnote omitted).”

Leandre Gholston v. Scott Sherrill (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “MCL 565.955(1). A seller can subsequently amend the disclosure, subject to certain requirements.”

Amy Scotto-Divetta v. Ann Kawaske (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, “[t]he transferor or his or her agent is not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission in any information delivered pursuant to this act if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the transferor .”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.955(1) — 6 cases

Roberts v. Saffell, 760 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “957] and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts of disclosures, to which the information being furnished applies.”

Bergen v. Baker, 691 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MCL 565.955; MCL 565.956; MCL 565.960. The SDA clearly creates a legal duty of disclosure relative to the transaction in this case.”

Edward Scott Kondrat v. Arnold Servitto (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “, citing MCL 565.955, MCL 565.956, and MCL 565.960.”

Jessica Sherman v. Brar Bir-Inder Singh (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[Bergen v Baker, 264 Mich App 376, 385 ; 691 NW2d 770 (2004), citing MCL 565.955, MCL 565.956, and MCL 565.960 (footnote omitted).”

Leandre Gholston v. Scott Sherrill (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “MCL 565.955(1). A seller can subsequently amend the disclosure, subject to certain requirements.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.955(2) — 1 case

Roberts v. Saffell, 760 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “957] and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts of disclosures, to which the information being furnished applies.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.955(3) — 1 case

Roberts v. Saffell, 760 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “957] and, if so, shall indicate the required disclosures, or parts of disclosures, to which the information being furnished applies.”

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.