Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 570 / Act 497 of 1980
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1105 (2026)

Additional definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT


Act 497 of 1980


570.1105 Additional definitions.

Sec. 105.

    (1)  "Lessee" means a person, other than the owner, who holds an interest, other than a security interest, in real property.

    (2) "Lien claimant" means a person having a right to a construction lien under this act.

    (3) "Owner" means a person holding a fee interest in real property or an equitable interest arising out of a land contract.

History: 1980, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 191, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 17, Eff. Mar. 1, 1982

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 27× “MCL 570.1105(2) defines “lien claimant” as a person having a right to a construction lien under the CLA.”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich. App. 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “]” It is undisputed that Vereyken was an “owner” of the property under MCL 570.1105(3) 2 and that he contracted with AFP to install the fire suppression system.”
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellon, 831 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” MCL 570.1105(1). In light of our conclusion that Mellon was not unjustly enriched by plaintiff, we need not consider whether plaintiff lacks an adequate legal remedy because Mellon is not liable to plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiffs legal remedy is adequate.”
Schuster Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Painia Dev. Corp., 651 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See MCL 570.1105(2) and MCL 570.1110(1). Roper did not submit a sworn statement in connection with any of the other partial payments it received.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “See MCL 570.1105(1) and (3); MSA 26.316(105X1) and (3).”
Kitchen Suppliers, Inc. v. Erb Lumber Co., 440 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “MCL 570.1105(1); MSA 26.316(105X1). The Johanneses intended to, and did, reside in the house upon its completion.”
Ruben S Ramos v. Bibi Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “”2 MCL 570.1105(3). The trial court concluded that defendant was never a “contractor” under the CLA: a “contractor” is one who contracts with an “owner”, and the Wilkinsons were not “owners” because their $15,000 check drawn on a closed account constituted fraud in the…”
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” MCL 570.1105(1). Accordingly, MBK had to be able to show that Lisa was not an owner, but otherwise had an interest in the property other than a security interest.”
Quantum Concrete Inc v. Plaza De Kaza LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “A suit to foreclose a construction lien is an equitable action and the circuit court must examine each claim and defense and determine the amount due to “each lien claimant.”
Morland Prop. Servs. LLC v. J J Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In fact, the only 3 As recognized by plaintiff, the CLA defines “lessee” as “a person, other than the owner, who holds an interest, other than a security interest, in real property.”
Oerther Bros. Excavating, Inc. v. Woodcraft Square Ltd. Dividend Hous. Ass'n, 355 N.W.2d 681 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The term "owner” is defined in MCL 570.1105(3); MSA 26.316(105X3) as "a person holding a fee interest in real property or an equitable interest arising out of a land contract”.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1105(1) — 5 cases
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellon, 831 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” MCL 570.1105(1). In light of our conclusion that Mellon was not unjustly enriched by plaintiff, we need not consider whether plaintiff lacks an adequate legal remedy because Mellon is not liable to plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiffs legal remedy is adequate.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “See MCL 570.1105(1) and (3); MSA 26.316(105X1) and (3).”
Kitchen Suppliers, Inc. v. Erb Lumber Co., 440 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “MCL 570.1105(1); MSA 26.316(105X1). The Johanneses intended to, and did, reside in the house upon its completion.”
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 570.1105(1). Accordingly, MBK had to be able to show that Lisa was not an owner, but otherwise had an interest in the property other than a security interest.”
Morland Prop. Servs. LLC v. J J Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In fact, the only 3 As recognized by plaintiff, the CLA defines “lessee” as “a person, other than the owner, who holds an interest, other than a security interest, in real property.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1105(2) — 3 cases
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). “MCL 570.1105(2) defines “lien claimant” as a person having a right to a construction lien under the CLA.”
Schuster Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Painia Dev. Corp., 651 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “See MCL 570.1105(2) and MCL 570.1110(1). Roper did not submit a sworn statement in connection with any of the other partial payments it received.”
Quantum Concrete Inc v. Plaza De Kaza LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “A suit to foreclose a construction lien is an equitable action and the circuit court must examine each claim and defense and determine the amount due to “each lien claimant.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1105(3) — 6 cases
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich. App. 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “]” It is undisputed that Vereyken was an “owner” of the property under MCL 570.1105(3) 2 and that he contracted with AFP to install the fire suppression system.”
Schuster Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Painia Dev. Corp., 651 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “See MCL 570.1105(2) and MCL 570.1110(1). Roper did not submit a sworn statement in connection with any of the other partial payments it received.”
Kitchen Suppliers, Inc. v. Erb Lumber Co., 440 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “MCL 570.1105(1); MSA 26.316(105X1). The Johanneses intended to, and did, reside in the house upon its completion.”
Ruben S Ramos v. Bibi Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “”2 MCL 570.1105(3). The trial court concluded that defendant was never a “contractor” under the CLA: a “contractor” is one who contracts with an “owner”, and the Wilkinsons were not “owners” because their $15,000 check drawn on a closed account constituted fraud in the…”
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 570.1105(1). Accordingly, MBK had to be able to show that Lisa was not an owner, but otherwise had an interest in the property other than a security interest.”
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.