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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1117 (2026)

Action for enforcement of construction lien through foreclosure; notice of lis pendens; agent appointed to represent laborers; parties; action on contract by lien claimant; enforcement of lien by cross-claim or counterclaim where lien claimant party; sworn statement.

✓ 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


570.1117 Action for enforcement of construction lien through foreclosure; notice of lis pendens; agent appointed to represent laborers; parties; action on contract by lien claimant; enforcement of lien by cross-claim or counterclaim where lien claimant party; sworn statement.

Sec. 117.

    (1)  Proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien and the foreclosure of any interests subject to the construction lien shall not be brought later than 1 year after the date the claim of lien was recorded.

    (2) At the time of commencing an action for the enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure, the plaintiff shall record a notice of lis pendens with respect to the action in the office of the register of deeds for the county in which the real property involved in the action is located.

    (3) As provided in section 111(6), an action to foreclose on a construction lien may be maintained by an agent appointed to represent laborers.

    (4) Each person who, at the time of filing the action, has an interest in the real property involved in the action which would be divested or otherwise impaired by the foreclosure of the lien, shall be made a party to the action.

    (5) In connection with an action for foreclosure of a construction lien, the lien claimant also may maintain an action on any contract from which the lien arose.

    (6) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (1), a lien claimant who has been made a party to an action for foreclosure of a construction lien may enforce his or her own construction lien in the action by a cross-claim or counterclaim, and the owner or lessee may timely join other or potential lien claimants in the action.

    (7) In an action brought by a contractor or subcontractor to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure, the complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim must show that the owner or lessee was provided a sworn statement, if a sworn statement was requested or required, pursuant to section 110.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · 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 13× “, MCL 570.1117 (providing extensive procedural requirements for the enforcement of a construction lien under the CLA).”
E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc, 717 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Because the one-year period of limitations under MCL 570.1117 expressly applies to “[proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien and the foreclosure of any interests subject to the construction lien,” which are enforcement proceedings independent of and distinct from…”
Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 Carpentry, 766 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “The Doshis eventually moved for summary disposition, seeking to discharge all construction liens on 7 Waltonshire, asserting, with respect to C & R’s lien, that it did not timely file its foreclosure action, thereby *348 barring enforcement of its lien pursuant to MCL 570.1117.…”
Advanta Nat'l Bank v. McClarty, 667 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to MCL 570.1117(2), a notice of lis pendens was filed with the register of deeds in the county where the property was located.”
Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 CARPENTRY, 766 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “The Doshis eventually moved for summary disposition, seeking to discharge all construction liens on 7 Waltonshire, asserting, with respect to C & R's lien, that it did not timely file its foreclosure action, thereby barring enforcement of its lien pursuant to MCL 570.1117. C & R…”
Jeddo Drywall, Inc. v. Cambridge Inv. Grp. Inc., 810 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “AmTrust contends that Stock is not entitled to foreclose on the first three liens because, contrary to MCL 570.1117(1), Stock filed this action in May 2008, more than one year after those liens were recorded.”
In Re McMullen, 189 B.R. 402 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Mich.Comp.Laws § 570.1117(1) (“Proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien .”
Owen-Ames-Kimball Co. v. Michigan Lithographing Co. (In Re Michigan Lithographing Co.), 140 B.R. 161 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 570.1117 provides in part as follows: (1) Proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien and the foreclosure of any interests subject to the construction lien shall not be brought later than 1 year after the date the claim of lien was recorded.”
Dane Constr., Inc v. Royal’s Wine & Deli, Inc, 480 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “57 CJS, Mechanics Liens, § 266, p 874; MCL 570.1117(5); MSA 26.316(117)(5). In the present case, plaintiff sued for breach of contract, an in personam action against the corporation and against Mr.”
Repub. Bank v. Modular One LLC, 591 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “3 Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s appeal is moot because it failed to file an action to enforce its claims of lien within one year from the time it recorded its liens pursuant to MCL 570.1117; MSA 26.316(117), and that the inclusion of nonlienable items in the lien…”
HA Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Decina, 742 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 2007). “MCL 570.1117(5). If the subcontractors had chosen to bring their breach of contract claims against the general contractor as a separate action, they would not have been allowed to recover attorney fees.”
In Re Brown, 287 B.R. 676 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “" § 570.1117(5)(emphasis added). The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Lien Act did not apply in the instant case because Plaintiff failed to establish that a contract existed between Debtor and Appellants.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1117(1) — 9 cases
E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc, 717 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Because the one-year period of limitations under MCL 570.1117 expressly applies to “[proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien and the foreclosure of any interests subject to the construction lien,” which are enforcement proceedings independent of and distinct from…”
Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 Carpentry, 766 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “The Doshis eventually moved for summary disposition, seeking to discharge all construction liens on 7 Waltonshire, asserting, with respect to C & R’s lien, that it did not timely file its foreclosure action, thereby *348 barring enforcement of its lien pursuant to MCL 570.1117.…”
Jeddo Drywall, Inc. v. Cambridge Inv. Grp. Inc., 810 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “AmTrust contends that Stock is not entitled to foreclose on the first three liens because, contrary to MCL 570.1117(1), Stock filed this action in May 2008, more than one year after those liens were recorded.”
In Re McMullen, 189 B.R. 402 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995). “See Mich.Comp.Laws § 570.1117(1) (“Proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien .”
Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 CARPENTRY, 766 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “The Doshis eventually moved for summary disposition, seeking to discharge all construction liens on 7 Waltonshire, asserting, with respect to C & R's lien, that it did not timely file its foreclosure action, thereby barring enforcement of its lien pursuant to MCL 570.1117. C & R…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1117(2) — 2 cases
Advanta Nat'l Bank v. McClarty, 667 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Pursuant to MCL 570.1117(2), a notice of lis pendens was filed with the register of deeds in the county where the property was located.”
Owen-Ames-Kimball Co. v. Michigan Lithographing Co. (In Re Michigan Lithographing Co.), 140 B.R. 161 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 570.1117 provides in part as follows: (1) Proceedings for the enforcement of a construction lien and the foreclosure of any interests subject to the construction lien shall not be brought later than 1 year after the date the claim of lien was recorded.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1117(4) — 3 cases
Advanta Nat'l Bank v. McClarty, 667 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Pursuant to MCL 570.1117(2), a notice of lis pendens was filed with the register of deeds in the county where the property was located.”
Michigan Elevator LLC v. Matrix Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Michigan Elevator LLC v. Matrix Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1117(5) — 7 cases
Ronnisch Constr. Grp., Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 886 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 2016). “, MCL 570.1117 (providing extensive procedural requirements for the enforcement of a construction lien under the CLA).”
Dane Constr., Inc v. Royal’s Wine & Deli, Inc, 480 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “57 CJS, Mechanics Liens, § 266, p 874; MCL 570.1117(5); MSA 26.316(117)(5). In the present case, plaintiff sued for breach of contract, an in personam action against the corporation and against Mr.”
HA Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Decina, 742 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 2007). “MCL 570.1117(5). If the subcontractors had chosen to bring their breach of contract claims against the general contractor as a separate action, they would not have been allowed to recover attorney fees.”
In Re Brown, 287 B.R. 676 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “" § 570.1117(5)(emphasis added). The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Lien Act did not apply in the instant case because Plaintiff failed to establish that a contract existed between Debtor and Appellants.”
Ruggeri Elec. Contracting Co. v. City of Algonac, 492 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
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.