BUILDING CONTRACT FUND
Act 259 of 1931
570.152 Building contract fund; fraudulent detention or use by contractor or subcontractor, penalty.
Sec. 2.
Any contractor or subcontractor engaged in the building construction business, who, with intent to defraud, shall retain or use the proceeds or any part therefor, of any payment made to him, for any other purpose than to first pay laborers, subcontractors and materialmen, engaged by him to perform labor or furnish material for the specific improvement, shall be guilty of a felony in appropriating such funds to his own use while any amount for which he may be liable or become liable under the terms of his contract for such labor or material remains unpaid, and may be prosecuted upon the complaint of any persons so defrauded, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than 100 dollars or more than 5,000 dollars and/or not less than 6 months nor more than 3 years imprisonment in a state prison at the discretion of the court.
History: 1931, Act 259, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 570.152
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of certain occupational functions, boards, and commissions from the Department of Licensing and Regulation to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1991-9, compiled at MCL 338.3501 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Notes of Decisions
DiPonio Constr. Co. v. Rosati Masonry Co., 631 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “First, plaintiff notes that the object-title clause of the act states that the act is designed “to protect the people of the state from imposition and fraud in the building construction industry.” Second, plaintiff notes that the statute penalizes those contractors and…”
Performance Contracting Inc. v. DynaSteel Corp., 750 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “]” Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.152 . DynaSteel also argues that if no monies are due under the parties’ contract, a plaintiff has no claim under the Trust Fund Act.”
In Re McMullen, 189 B.R. 402 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1995).
· cites it 7× “” Mich. Comp.Laws § 570.152. The Debtor argued that in filing and prosecuting criminal charges against him, the Prosecutor’s true motive is to force him to repay the co-op debt, and that the prosecution is therefore contrary to § 524(a)(2).”
People v. Brown, 610 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Brown appeals as of right from her conviction by a jury of fraudulent retention or use of building contract funds, MCL 570.152; MSA 26.332. The trial court sentenced her to five years’ probation, with the first year to be served in jail.”
Accu-Tech Corp. v. Jackson, 352 F. Supp. 2d 831 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
· cites it 4× “§ 570.152. 9 Michigan courts have recognized a civil remedy inherent in the MBTFA.”
BC Tile & Marble Co. v. Multi Bldg. Co., 794 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 570.152 provides: Any contractor or subcontractor engaged in the building construction business, who, with intent to defraud, shall retain or use the proceeds or any part therefor [sic], of any payment made to him, for any other purpose than to first pay laborers,…”
Nat'l Bank v. Eames & Brown, Inc., 242 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 570.152; MSA 26.332. The burden of proving that any or all of the funds provided were in fact used to pay laborers, subcontractors and materialmen on this project rests on the secured party.”
People v. Miller, 259 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The next section, MCLA 570.152; MSA 26.332, makes it a felony for the trustee-contractor to retain or use, with intent to defraud, any payments made to him for any other purpose than to first pay laborers, subcontractors and material-men.”
People v. Whipple, 509 N.W.2d 837 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The people appeal by leave granted an order of the Kalamazoo Circuit Court affirming an order of the 8th District Court dismissing a charge against defendant of fraudulent retention or use of building contract funds, MCL 570.152; MSA 26.332. We reverse and reinstate the charge.”
Barbour v. Handlos Real Est. & Bldg. Corp., 393 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff further argues that the assignment of the mortgage violated MCL 570.152, 570.153; MSA 26.332, 26.333, and he is therefore entitled to statutory damages, actual damages for lost work and expenses, and attorney fees and costs.”
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.