Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940 (2026)

Nuisance; abatement; circuit court; injunction; private nuisance; damages; warrant to abate and remove nuisance; expense; actions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2940 Nuisance; abatement; circuit court; injunction; private nuisance; damages; warrant to abate and remove nuisance; expense; actions.

Sec. 2940.

    (1) All claims based on or to abate nuisance may be brought in the circuit court. The circuit court may grant injunctions to stay and prevent nuisance.

    (2) When the plaintiff prevails on a claim based on a private nuisance, he may have judgment for damages and may have judgment that the nuisance be abated and removed unless the judge finds that the abatement of the nuisance is unnecessary.

    (3) If the judgment is that the nuisance shall be abated, the court may issue a warrant to the proper officer, requiring him to abate and remove the nuisance at the expense of the defendant, in the manner that public nuisances are abated and removed. The court may stay the warrant for as long as 6 months to give the defendant an opportunity to remove the nuisance, upon the defendant giving satisfactory security to do so.

    (4) The expense of abating and removing the nuisance pursuant to such warrant, shall be collected by the officer in the same manner as damages and costs are collected upon execution, excepting that the materials of any buildings, fences, or other things that may be removed as a nuisance, may be sold by the officer, in like manner as goods are sold on execution for the payment of debts. The officer may apply the proceeds of such sale to defray the expenses of the removal, and shall pay over the balance thereof, if any, to the defendant upon demand. If the proceeds of the sale are not sufficient to defray the said expenses, he shall collect the residue thereof as before provided.

    (5) Actions under this section are equitable in nature unless only money damages are claimed.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 761 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 761 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “B Before the circuit court could take cognizance of plaintiffs complaint for nuisance abatement pursuant to MCL 600.2940, it was first required to determine that there was a nuisance in need of abatement.”
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 9× “However, we note that it is unclear from the record exactly which municipal ordinances Ypsilanti relied on in commencing this action.”
Capitol Props. Grp., LLC v. 1247 Ctr. Street, LLC, 770 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “We agree with the trial court that the prior evidence, taken with the additional evidence offered in support of the summary disposition motion (and response), establishes no question of material fact concerning the claim of a public nuisance.”
Wiggins v. City of Burton, 805 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “The Wiggins sought money damages as well as abatement of the alleged nuisance under MCL 600.2940. Lastly, in count 5, the Wiggins claimed that the City’s actions had resulted in an unconstitutional taking of a portion of their property without just compensation.”
Ramik v. Darling Int'l, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 6× “In response, plaintiffs rely on subsection (2) of the statute, which provides that “[w]hen a plaintiff prevails on a claim based on private nuisance, he may have judgment for damages.”
Kurrle v. Walker, 224 N.W.2d 99 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “All the construction was done on the land owned by defendant, and plaintiffs have the right to use and enjoyment of the bayou for navigation, fishing, swimming, etc.”
Cheboygan Cnty. Constr. Code Dep't v. Burke, 384 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Similarly, the execution statutes are silent as to priorities in this situation.”
City of Battle Creek v. Bryant C Debolt Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 13× “Michigan Avenue is a nuisance pursuant to MCL 600.2940, and the tower has been a nuisance since 2019.”
Fortin v. Vitali, 167 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). “2 MOLA § 600.2940 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §27A.2940).”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “In Count III, defendant seeks an injunction to abate a public nuisance under MCL 600.2940, on the ground that plaintiff’s motel was operating without a public lodging license in violation of defendant’s ordinances.”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “In Count III, defendant seeks an injunction to abate a public nuisance under MCL 600.2940, on the ground that plaintiff’s motel was operating without a public lodging license in violation of defendant’s ordinances.”
City of Detroit v. Nationwide Recovery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “252e(4), which provides: “The remedies under sections 252 through 254 are the exclusive remedies for the disposition of abandoned vehicles.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940(1) — 7 cases
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, we note that it is unclear from the record exactly which municipal ordinances Ypsilanti relied on in commencing this action.”
City of Detroit v. Nationwide Recovery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “252e(4), which provides: “The remedies under sections 252 through 254 are the exclusive remedies for the disposition of abandoned vehicles.”
City of Battle Creek v. Bryant C Debolt Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Michigan Avenue is a nuisance pursuant to MCL 600.2940, and the tower has been a nuisance since 2019.”
Edward H Green Trust v. Martin W Joseph (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Twp. of Champion v. Roy Pascoe (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940(2) — 1 case
Ramik v. Darling Int'l, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “In response, plaintiffs rely on subsection (2) of the statute, which provides that “[w]hen a plaintiff prevails on a claim based on private nuisance, he may have judgment for damages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940(3) — 3 cases
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, we note that it is unclear from the record exactly which municipal ordinances Ypsilanti relied on in commencing this action.”
Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 761 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “B Before the circuit court could take cognizance of plaintiffs complaint for nuisance abatement pursuant to MCL 600.2940, it was first required to determine that there was a nuisance in need of abatement.”
City of Battle Creek v. Bryant C Debolt Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Michigan Avenue is a nuisance pursuant to MCL 600.2940, and the tower has been a nuisance since 2019.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940(4) — 3 cases
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, we note that it is unclear from the record exactly which municipal ordinances Ypsilanti relied on in commencing this action.”
Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 761 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “B Before the circuit court could take cognizance of plaintiffs complaint for nuisance abatement pursuant to MCL 600.2940, it was first required to determine that there was a nuisance in need of abatement.”
City of Battle Creek v. Bryant C Debolt Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Michigan Avenue is a nuisance pursuant to MCL 600.2940, and the tower has been a nuisance since 2019.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2940(5) — 7 cases
Capitol Props. Grp., LLC v. 1247 Ctr. Street, LLC, 770 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “We agree with the trial court that the prior evidence, taken with the additional evidence offered in support of the summary disposition motion (and response), establishes no question of material fact concerning the claim of a public nuisance.”
Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 761 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “B Before the circuit court could take cognizance of plaintiffs complaint for nuisance abatement pursuant to MCL 600.2940, it was first required to determine that there was a nuisance in need of abatement.”
City of Roseville v. John Musta Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Jack Morley v. Twp. of Bangor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
James M Farese v. Am. Tower Corp (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
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.