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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3815 (2026)

Admissible evidence; unnecessary proof; judgment and order; abatement of nuisance by forfeiture or sale.

✓ 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


600.3815 Admissible evidence; unnecessary proof; judgment and order; abatement of nuisance by forfeiture or sale.

Sec. 3815.

    (1) In an action under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.

    (2) In an action under this chapter, proof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on the part of 1 or more of the defendants is not required.

    (3) In an action under this chapter, it is not necessary for the court to find the property involved was being used as and for a nuisance at the time of the hearing, or for the plaintiff to prove that the nuisance was continuing at the time the complaint was filed, if the complaint is filed within 90 days after any act, any violation, or the existence of a condition described in section 3801 as a nuisance.

    (4) In an action under this chapter, on finding that the plaintiff has satisfied the burden of proof and that the material allegations of the complaint are true, the court shall enter a judgment and order of abatement as provided in this chapter. However, if the plaintiff seeks abatement of a nuisance by forfeiture or sale of a vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other personal property, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the vehicle, boat, aircraft, or property was used for or in furtherance of the activity or conduct that constituted the nuisance as described in section 3801.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 387, Eff. Mar. 18, 2015 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 153, Eff. Jan. 18, 2016

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Michigan Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 527 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michigan Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 527 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 12× “The section provides: In any action brought under this chapter, evidence *733 of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996). · cites it 2× “" Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3825 (1979). [4] "Proof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on the part of the defendants or any of them, is not required.”
State Ex Rel. Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Levenburg, 280 N.W.2d 810 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “" MCL 600.3815(2); MSA 27A.3815(2). [12] People ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Sill and State ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Martin, supra .”
State Ex Rel Macomb Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Mesk, 333 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.3815; MSA 27A.3815; State ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Weitzman, 21 Mich App 705, 709 ; 176 NW2d 463 (1970).”
State Ex Rel Oakland Prosecuting Attorney v. Weaver, 254 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Our inquiry is twofold: (1) Does the statute require proof of the property owner’s knowledge of the illegal activities; and (2) If not, would confiscation of an innocent owner’s property amount to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation? The Legislature has…”
State Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Bennis, 504 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “MCL 600.3815(2); MSA 27A.3815(2) provides that "proof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on the part of the defendants or any of them, is not required.”
State Ex Rel. Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v. Weitzman, 176 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “aintiff to prove that the nuisance was continuing at the time of the filing of the complaint, if the complaint is filed within 30 days after any act, any violation, or the existence of a condition herein defined as a nuisance, but on finding that the material allegations of the…”
State Ex Rel Oakland Cnty. Prosecutor v. Motorama Motel Corp., 307 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 600.3815; MSA 27A.3815 makes unnecessary in nuisance abatement proceedings proof of a defendant’s knowledge of the existence of a nuisance.”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3815(1) — 5 cases
Michigan Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 527 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. 1994). “The section provides: In any action brought under this chapter, evidence *733 of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3815(2) — 5 cases
Michigan Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 527 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. 1994). “The section provides: In any action brought under this chapter, evidence *733 of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
State Ex Rel. Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Levenburg, 280 N.W.2d 810 (Mich. 1979). “" MCL 600.3815(2); MSA 27A.3815(2). [12] People ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Sill and State ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Martin, supra .”
State Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Bennis, 504 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “MCL 600.3815(2); MSA 27A.3815(2) provides that "proof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on the part of the defendants or any of them, is not required.”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3815(3) — 4 cases
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3815(4) — 4 cases
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Krishna Krupa Inc v. City of Ferndale (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant argued that it was entitled to a judgment and order -2- of abatement under MCL 600.3815, because it filed its complaint within 90 days of acts that are considered a nuisance—namely illegal drug and prostitution activities occurring on February 18, 2016 at the motel—and…”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “The statute provides that: In an action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance.”
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.