Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1118

Action to enforce construction lien through foreclosure; circuit court; equitable nature of action; enforcement of lien by cross-claim or counterclaim filed in pending action; duties of court; attorneys' fees.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT

Act 497 of 1980

570.1118 Action to enforce construction lien through foreclosure; circuit court; equitable nature of action; enforcement of lien by cross-claim or counterclaim filed in pending action; duties of court; attorneys' fees.

Sec. 118.

(1) An action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure shall be brought in the circuit court for the county where the real property described in the claim of lien is located. If the real property is located in more than 1 county or judicial circuit, the action may be brought in any of the counties where the real property is located. An action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure is equitable in nature. A construction lien also may be enforced by a cross-claim or counterclaim timely filed in a pending action involving title to, or foreclosure of mortgages or encumbrances on, real property.

(2) In an action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure, the court shall examine each claim and defense that is presented and determine the amount, if any, due to each lien claimant or to any mortgagee or holder of an encumbrance and their respective priorities. The court may allow reasonable attorneys' fees to a lien claimant who is the prevailing party. The court also may allow reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant if the court determines the lien claimant's action to enforce a construction lien under this section was vexatious.

History: 1980, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 17, Eff. Mar. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 147, Imd. Eff. Aug. 23, 2010

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2016) mich · cites it 55× “Ronnisch then moved the circuit court for confirmation of the arbitration award and sought attorney fees and costs under MCL 570.1118(2) of the CLA. LOTN argued that Ronnisch’s motion should be denied because LOTN had already satisfied the arbitration award by paying Ronnisch…”

Solution Source, Inc. v. LPR Associates Ltd. Partnership (2002) michctapp · cites it 12× “The applicable provision of the Construction Lien Act provides: In each action in which enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure is sought, the court shall examine each claim and defense that is presented, and determine the amount, if any, due to each lien claimant…”

Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2014) michctapp · cites it 13× “Because the circuit court erroneously concluded that it was precluded from considering awarding attorney fees under MCL 570.1118(2), we vacate the portion of the order dealing with attorney fees and remand the case.”

C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC (2013) michctapp · cites it 4× “Following entry of the trial court’s order, Barnes moved for attorney fees under § 118(2) of the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1118(2), and sanctions under MCR 2.”

E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc (2006) michctapp · cites it 4× “Zeiler states that its claim against DOMA encompassed only the equitable request for reinstatement of its claim of lien and that no request is made in the instant action to enforce a construction lien in a foreclosure proceeding under MCL 570.1118. Zeiler further states that the…”

Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights (2003) michctapp · cites it 2× “§ 570.1118(2) permits a trial court to award reasonable appellate attorney fees to a prevailing party under the Construction Lien Act, M.”

HA Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Decina (2007) mich · cites it 3× “To be awarded attorney fees as a "prevailing party" under MCL 570.1118(2), the party must prevail on the lien foreclosure action.”

Vugterveen Systems, Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp. (1997) mich · cites it 2× “[MCL 570.1118(2); MSA 26.316(118)(2).] Thus, the act distinguishes between a lien claimant and a defendant.”

Advanta National Bank v. McClarty (2003) michctapp “The foreclosure action was filed, pursuant to MCL 570.1118(1), in the county where the property was located.”

HA Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Decina (2003) michctapp “1118(2), provides: In each action in which enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure is sought, the court shall examine each claim and defense that is presented, and determine the amount, if any, due to each lien claimant or to any mortgagee or holder of an…”

Dane Construction, Inc v. Royal’s Wine & Deli, Inc (1991) michctapp “MCL 570.1118(1); MSA 26.316(118X1). Although the proceeding to foreclose on the construction lien originates from the contract, it is an action directed at the prop *293 erty rather than the person or entity who contracted for the services and is separate and distinct from an…”

H a Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Decina (2005) michctapp “1118(2), provides: In each action in which enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure is sought, the court shall examine each claim and defense that is presented, and determine the amount, if any, due to each lien claimant or to any mortgagee or holder of an…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1118(1) — 9 cases

Advanta National Bank v. McClarty (2003) michctapp “The foreclosure action was filed, pursuant to MCL 570.1118(1), in the county where the property was located.”

Mark Herman v. Gregory Asquith (2023) michctapp

20250218_C367762_120_367762.Opn.Pdf (2025) michctapp

Core Values Construction LLC v. Sheehan's on the Green Inc (2025) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1118(2) — 32 cases

Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2016) mich “Ronnisch then moved the circuit court for confirmation of the arbitration award and sought attorney fees and costs under MCL 570.1118(2) of the CLA. LOTN argued that Ronnisch’s motion should be denied because LOTN had already satisfied the arbitration award by paying Ronnisch…”

Solution Source, Inc. v. LPR Associates Ltd. Partnership (2002) michctapp “The applicable provision of the Construction Lien Act provides: In each action in which enforcement of a construction lien through foreclosure is sought, the court shall examine each claim and defense that is presented, and determine the amount, if any, due to each lien claimant…”

Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2014) michctapp “Because the circuit court erroneously concluded that it was precluded from considering awarding attorney fees under MCL 570.1118(2), we vacate the portion of the order dealing with attorney fees and remand the case.”

C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC (2013) michctapp “Following entry of the trial court’s order, Barnes moved for attorney fees under § 118(2) of the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1118(2), and sanctions under MCR 2.”

E R Zeiler Excavating, Inc v. Valenti Trobec Chandler Inc (2006) michctapp “Zeiler states that its claim against DOMA encompassed only the equitable request for reinstatement of its claim of lien and that no request is made in the instant action to enforce a construction lien in a foreclosure proceeding under MCL 570.1118. Zeiler further states that the…”

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.