Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1302
Construction of act.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT
Act 497 of 1980
570.1302 Construction of act.
Sec. 302.
(1) This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial results, intents, and purposes of this act. Substantial compliance with the provisions of this act shall be sufficient for the validity of the construction liens provided for in this act, and to give jurisdiction to the court to enforce them.
(2) This act shall not be construed to prevent a lien claimant from maintaining a separate action on a contract.
History: 1980, Act 497, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 17, Eff. Mar. 1, 1982
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC
Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2016)
“See MCL 570.1302(1). 18 MCL 570.1302(1). This provision, like its predecessor in the Mechanics’ Lien Act, former MCL 570.”
Alan Custom Homes, Inc v. Krol (2003)
“2 The “substantial compliance” provision of the cla, MCL 570.1302(1), states: This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial results, intents, and purposes of this act.”
Central Ceiling & Parttiton, Inc v. Department of Commerce (2002)
“MCL 570.1302(1). Application of the substantial compliance provision in this circumstance comports with the Construction Lien Act's purpose of "protecting the rights of lien *402 claimants to payment for wages and materials.”
C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC (2013)
“MCL 570.1302(1). [Citations omitted.] The Legislature has specified that because the Construction Lien Act is a remedial statute, “[s]ubstantial compliance with the provisions of this act shall be *412 sufficient for the validity of the construction liens provided for in this…”
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellon (2012)
“’ ” DLF Trucking Inc v Bach, 268 Mich App 306, 311 ; 707 NW2d 606 (2005), quoting MCL 570.1302(1). “Substantial compliance with the provisions of [the CLA] shall be sufficient for the validity of the construction liens provided for in [the CLA], and to give jurisdiction to the…”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken (2014)
“See MCL 570.1302(1); Norcross, 165 Mich App at 178-179 .”
Vugterveen Systems, Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp. (1997)
“MCL 570.1302(1); MSA 26.316(302)(1). Further, substantial compliance is sufficient to meet the provisions of part one of the act.”
Jeddo Drywall, Inc. v. Cambridge Investment Group Inc. (2011)
“As set forth in MCL 570.1302(1), the CLA is “a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial results, intents, and purposes of this act.”
Gold v. Interstate Financial Corp. (In Re Schmiel) (2007)
“That provision is contained in Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 570.1302 and states that: “This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial result, intents, and purposes of this act.”
Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc v. Sinacola Companies—midwest, Inc (1999)
“9 The majority found that the plaintiff’s substantial compliance with the ninety-day filing deadline is sufficient in light of MCL 570.1302(1); MSA 26.316(302)(1), 10 which provides: This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the…”
Solution Source, Inc. v. LPR Associates Ltd. Partnership (2002)
“” MCL 570.1302(1). The act is designed to protect the rights of lien claimants to pay *374 ment for expenses and to protect the rights of property owners from paying twice for these expenses.”
Advanta National Bank v. McClarty (2003)
“The cla contains a substantial compliance provision, MCL 570.1302(1), which provides: This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial results, intents, and purposes of this act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1302(1) — 30 cases
Ronnisch Construction Group, Inc v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC (2016)
“See MCL 570.1302(1). 18 MCL 570.1302(1). This provision, like its predecessor in the Mechanics’ Lien Act, former MCL 570.”
Central Ceiling & Parttiton, Inc v. Department of Commerce (2002)
“MCL 570.1302(1). Application of the substantial compliance provision in this circumstance comports with the Construction Lien Act's purpose of "protecting the rights of lien *402 claimants to payment for wages and materials.”
C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC (2013)
“MCL 570.1302(1). [Citations omitted.] The Legislature has specified that because the Construction Lien Act is a remedial statute, “[s]ubstantial compliance with the provisions of this act shall be *412 sufficient for the validity of the construction liens provided for in this…”
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellon (2012)
“’ ” DLF Trucking Inc v Bach, 268 Mich App 306, 311 ; 707 NW2d 606 (2005), quoting MCL 570.1302(1). “Substantial compliance with the provisions of [the CLA] shall be sufficient for the validity of the construction liens provided for in [the CLA], and to give jurisdiction to the…”
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken (2014)
“See MCL 570.1302(1); Norcross, 165 Mich App at 178-179 .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.1302(2) — 5 cases
Alan Custom Homes, Inc v. Krol (2003)
“2 The “substantial compliance” provision of the cla, MCL 570.1302(1), states: This act is declared to be a remedial statute, and shall be liberally construed to secure the beneficial results, intents, and purposes of this act.”
Vugterveen Systems, Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp. (1997)
“MCL 570.1302(1); MSA 26.316(302)(1). Further, substantial compliance is sufficient to meet the provisions of part one of the act.”
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.