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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 565.956 (2026)

Disclosures; inaccuracy as result of action, occurrence, or agreement after delivery; unknown or unavailable information; basis.

✓ 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


565.956 Disclosures; inaccuracy as result of action, occurrence, or agreement after delivery; unknown or unavailable information; basis.

Sec. 6.

    If information disclosed in accordance with this act becomes inaccurate as a result of any action, occurrence, or agreement after the delivery of the required disclosures, the resulting inaccuracy does not constitute a violation of this act. If at the time the disclosures are required to be made, an item of information required to be disclosed under this act is unknown or unavailable to the transferor, the transferor may comply with this act by advising a prospective purchaser of the fact that the information is unknown. The information provided to a prospective purchaser pursuant to this act shall be based upon the best information available and known to the transferor.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 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 8× “" MCL 565.956. Further, the SDS must be completed with "the best information available and known to the transferor.”
Bergen v. Baker, 691 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “955; MCL 565.956; MCL 565.960. The SDA clearly creates a legal duty of disclosure relative to the transaction in this case.”
Jessica Sherman v. Brar Bir-Inder Singh (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “955, MCL 565.956, and MCL 565.960 (footnote omitted).”
Edward Scott Kondrat v. Arnold Servitto (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “MCL 565.956; MCL 565.960. The SDA creates a duty of disclosure regarding these specific items.”
Paul Locher v. Est. of Bradley M Zimmerman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “MCL 565.956. Further, the SDS must be completed with “the best information available and known to the transferor.”
Evduza Ramaj v. Todd Marra (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Although there are additional elements that a plaintiff must show to succeed on any of the common-law theories, this appeal comes down to what defendants knew or reasonably should have known when they sold their house to Evduza. C. THE 2013 BRAMPTON BRICK REPORT Evduza’s claims…”
Leandre Gholston v. Scott Sherrill (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “See MCL 565.956. Further, the act anticipates that a seller might receive relevant and material information about a hazard after completing the SDS, MCL 565.”
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.