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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107 (2026)

Construction lien generally.

✓ 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


570.1107 Construction lien generally.

Sec. 107.

    (1) Each contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or laborer who provides an improvement to real property has a construction lien upon the interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement to the real property, as described in the notice of commencement given under section 108 or 108a, the interest of an owner who has subordinated his or her interest to the mortgage for the improvement of the real property, and the interest of an owner who has required the improvement. A construction lien acquired pursuant to this act shall not exceed the amount of the lien claimant's contract less payments made on the contract.

    (2) A construction lien under this act attaches to the entire interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement, including any subsequently acquired legal or equitable interest.

    (3) Each contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or laborer who provides an improvement to real property to which the person contracting for the improvement had no legal title has a construction lien upon the improvement for which the contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or laborer provided labor, material, or equipment. The forfeiture, surrender, or termination of any title or interest held by an owner or lessee who contracted for an improvement to the property, an owner who subordinated his or her interest to the mortgage for the improvement, or an owner who has required the improvement does not defeat the lien of the contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or laborer upon the improvement.

    (4) If the rights of a person contracting for an improvement as a land contract vendee or a lessee are forfeited, surrendered, or otherwise terminated, any lien claimant who has provided a notice of furnishing or is excused from providing a notice of furnishing under section 108, 108a, or 109 and who performs the covenants contained in the land contract or lease within 30 days after receiving actual notice of the forfeiture, surrender, or termination is subrogated to the rights of the contracting vendee or lessee as those rights existed immediately before the forfeiture, surrender, or termination.

    (5) For purposes of this act, if the real property is owned or leased by more than 1 person, there is a rebuttable presumption that an improvement to real property under a contract with an owner or lessee was consented to by any other co-owner or co-lessee. If enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure is sought and the court finds that the improvement was consented to by a co-owner or co-lessee who did not contract for the improvement, the court shall order the entire interest of that co-owner or co-lessee, including any subsequently acquired legal or equitable interest, to be subject to the construction lien. A deficiency judgment shall not be entered against a noncontracting owner, co-owner, lessee, or co-lessee.

    (6) If the real property of an owner or lessee is subject to multiple construction liens, the sum of the construction liens shall not exceed the amount the owner or lessee agreed to pay the person with whom he or she contracted for the improvement as modified by all additions, deletions, and other amendments, less payments made by or on behalf of the owner or lessee, pursuant to either a contractor's sworn statement or a waiver of lien, in accordance with this act.

    (7) After the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, a construction lien of a subcontractor or supplier for an improvement to a residential structure shall only include an amount for interest, including, but not limited to, a time-price differential or a finance charge, if the amount is in accordance with the terms of the contract between the subcontractor or supplier and the contractor or subcontractor and does not include any interest that accrues after 90 days after the claim of lien is recorded.

History: 1980, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 191, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 17, Eff. Mar. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 3, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · 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 26× “Additionally, MCL 570.1107(1) states that a lien cannot exceed the amount of the lien claimant’s contract less payments made on the contract.”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich. App. 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “” MCL 570.1107(1). The trial court also erred by ruling that the land contract between Northtowne and Vereyken “required the improvement.”
C D Barnes Assocs. Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC, 834 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “The trial court reasoned that MCL 570.1107 and MCL 570.1108 of the Construction Lien Act allowed for the use of the metes and bounds description and that the Condominium Act did not alter this.”
Alan Custom Homes, Inc v. Krol, 667 N.W.2d 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Defendants rely on MCL 570.1107 and MCL 570.1114 to support their argument that plaintiff’s claim of lien is restricted to the difference between the written-contract price and the amount defendants already paid plaintiff.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 9× “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107)(1) provides that a claim of lien attaches to the interest of (1) the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement; (2) the mortgaging owner who subordinated its interest to the mortgage for the improvement; or (3) the owner who has required…”
Erb Lumber, Inc v. Gidley, 594 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “§ 570.1107(6); MSA 26.316(107)(6) "was designed to protect an owner from excessive liens by allowing an owner to rely on the price set forth in its contract with the general contractor"—to conclude that full payment of the entire contract price is necessary in order to require…”
Vugterveen Sys., Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp., 560 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 5× “[MCL 570.1107(6); MSA 26.316(107)(6).] This is the defense asserted by the defendant in this case.”
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 854 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, the Supreme Court aptly concluded that in light of no hen legally being able to attach to the property, it was impossible for the subcontractors to have prevailed on their hen claims, which is a prerequisite for being able to cohect attorney fees under MCL 570.”
Erb Lumber Co. v. Homeowner Constr. Lien Recovery Fund, 522 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “MCL 570.1107; MSA 26.316(107). Two sections of the Construction Lien Act are relevant to resolution of the dispute.”
Michigan Pipe & Valve-Lansing, Inc. v. Hebeler Enter., Inc., 808 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 15× “Subsection (7) was added to MCL 570.1107 in 2006. See 2006 PA 497 . 2 According to the legislative analyses, the Legislature added subsection (7) to help ensure the solvency of the Home Owner Construction Lien Recovery Fund.”
E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc, 717 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “[MCL 570.1107(1).] A construction lien “shall attach to the entire interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement, including any subsequently acquired legal or equitable interest.”
M D Marinich, Inc v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 484 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107) (1). "Contract,” as used in the act, is given a broad definition that includes any type of contract and all additions, deletions, or modifications.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(1) — 30 cases
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). “Additionally, MCL 570.1107(1) states that a lien cannot exceed the amount of the lien claimant’s contract less payments made on the contract.”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich. App. 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “” MCL 570.1107(1). The trial court also erred by ruling that the land contract between Northtowne and Vereyken “required the improvement.”
C D Barnes Assocs. Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC, 834 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court reasoned that MCL 570.1107 and MCL 570.1108 of the Construction Lien Act allowed for the use of the metes and bounds description and that the Condominium Act did not alter this.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107)(1) provides that a claim of lien attaches to the interest of (1) the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement; (2) the mortgaging owner who subordinated its interest to the mortgage for the improvement; or (3) the owner who has required…”
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 854 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, the Supreme Court aptly concluded that in light of no hen legally being able to attach to the property, it was impossible for the subcontractors to have prevailed on their hen claims, which is a prerequisite for being able to cohect attorney fees under MCL 570.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(2) — 8 cases
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). “Additionally, MCL 570.1107(1) states that a lien cannot exceed the amount of the lien claimant’s contract less payments made on the contract.”
C D Barnes Assocs. Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC, 834 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court reasoned that MCL 570.1107 and MCL 570.1108 of the Construction Lien Act allowed for the use of the metes and bounds description and that the Condominium Act did not alter this.”
E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc, 717 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “[MCL 570.1107(1).] A construction lien “shall attach to the entire interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement, including any subsequently acquired legal or equitable interest.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107)(1) provides that a claim of lien attaches to the interest of (1) the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement; (2) the mortgaging owner who subordinated its interest to the mortgage for the improvement; or (3) the owner who has required…”
Vugterveen Sys., Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp., 533 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(3) — 7 cases
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107)(1) provides that a claim of lien attaches to the interest of (1) the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement; (2) the mortgaging owner who subordinated its interest to the mortgage for the improvement; or (3) the owner who has required…”
Stocker v. Tri-Mount/Bay Harbor Bldg. Co., 706 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Jeddo Drywall, Inc. v. Cambridge Inv. Grp. Inc., 810 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Ruben S Ramos v. Bibi Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(4) — 4 cases
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich. App. 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “” MCL 570.1107(1). The trial court also erred by ruling that the land contract between Northtowne and Vereyken “required the improvement.”
Norcross Co. v. Turner-Fisher Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 570.1107(1); MSA 26.316(107)(1) provides that a claim of lien attaches to the interest of (1) the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement; (2) the mortgaging owner who subordinated its interest to the mortgage for the improvement; or (3) the owner who has required…”
West Lansing Retail Dev. LLC v. Kris Krstovski (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
D West Lansing Retail Dev. LLC v. Kris Krstovski (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(6) — 9 cases
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). “Additionally, MCL 570.1107(1) states that a lien cannot exceed the amount of the lien claimant’s contract less payments made on the contract.”
Erb Lumber, Inc v. Gidley, 594 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 570.1107(6); MSA 26.316(107)(6) "was designed to protect an owner from excessive liens by allowing an owner to rely on the price set forth in its contract with the general contractor"—to conclude that full payment of the entire contract price is necessary in order to require…”
Vugterveen Sys., Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp., 560 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. 1997). “[MCL 570.1107(6); MSA 26.316(107)(6).] This is the defense asserted by the defendant in this case.”
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 854 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, the Supreme Court aptly concluded that in light of no hen legally being able to attach to the property, it was impossible for the subcontractors to have prevailed on their hen claims, which is a prerequisite for being able to cohect attorney fees under MCL 570.”
Old Kent Bank v. Whitaker Constr. Co., 566 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1107(7) — 3 cases
Michigan Pipe & Valve-Lansing, Inc. v. Hebeler Enter., Inc., 808 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “Subsection (7) was added to MCL 570.1107 in 2006. See 2006 PA 497 . 2 According to the legislative analyses, the Legislature added subsection (7) to help ensure the solvency of the Home Owner Construction Lien Recovery Fund.”
Carol Dubuc v. Copeland Paving Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Doug Dysert Poured Walls LLC v. Del Charbonier (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
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.