Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1101
Short title.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT
Act 497 of 1980
570.1101 Short title.
Sec. 101.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "construction lien act".
History: 1980, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC
Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2016)
“Because of a deficiency in payment, Ronnisch had filed a claim of lien under the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq., with the Oakland County Register of Deeds.”
Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co. (2002)
“[5] MCL 570.1101 et seq. [6] 120 B.R. 84 (E.D.”
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher (2007)
“17 Under the Fire Prevention Code, hens imposed for the expense of abating fire hazards are to be foreclosed in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq. MCL 29.16(1). Under the Construction Lien Act, the trial court may set a…”
Alan Custom Homes, Inc v. Krol (2003)
“Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret § 110 of the Construction Lien Act (cla), MCL 570.1101 et seq. In Vugterveen Sys, Inc v Olde Millpond Corp, 454 Mich 119, 121 ; 560 NW2d 43 (1997), our Supreme Court discussed the purpose and interpretation of the cla and stated…”
McCoig Materials, LLC v. Galui Construction, Inc. (2012)
“Indeed, the separate deliveries of materials are but a continuing transaction under the one contract.”
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellon (2012)
“1114, which is part of the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq., and provides that a contractor does not have a right to a construction lien on an interest in a residential structure unless the work was done pursuant to a written contract conforming to specific…”
C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC (2013)
“1108, which is § 108 of the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq. On May 2, 2006, at Star Heaven’s request, Barnes executed a sworn statement that represented that, as of that date, the subject property was “free from claims of construction liens.”
Solution Source, Inc. v. LPR Associates Ltd. Partnership (2002)
“LPR Associates Limited Partnership and LPR Land Company (hereafter defendants) appeal as of right from a postjudgment award of attorney fees pursuant to the attorney fee provision of the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq., in favor of plaintiff Solution Source, Inc.”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken (2014)
“In an opinion and order, the trial court concluded that AFP’s construction lien attached to Northtowne’s entire interest in the subject property because Northtowne both contracted for and required the improvement for purposes of the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et…”
National Waterworks, Inc v. International Fidelity & Surety, Ltd (2007)
“Plaintiff cites Fischer-Flack, Inc v Churchfield, 180 Mich App 606 ; 447 NW2d 813 (1989), in which this Court determined that, under the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq., the plaintiff had substantially complied with the notice requirements of the Construction Lien…”
New Properties, Inc v. George D Newpower, Jr, Inc (2009)
“In Solution Source, Inc v LPR Assoc Ltd Partnership, 25 this Court held that, under the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq., appellate fees, and fees associated with postjudgment collection, are recoverable because the act does not specifically exclude them.”
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights (2003)
“§ 570.1101, et seq. The Court noted a similar holding under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1101(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1101(3) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1101(4) — 1 case
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.