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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714

Summary proceedings to recover possession of premises; holding over by tenant or occupant of public housing or by tenant of mobile home park.

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


600.5714 Summary proceedings to recover possession of premises; holding over by tenant or occupant of public housing or by tenant of mobile home park.

Sec. 5714.

    (1) A person entitled to possession of premises may recover possession by summary proceedings in the following circumstances:

    (a) When a person holds over premises after failing or refusing to pay rent due under the lease or agreement by which the person holds the premises within 7 days from the service of a written demand for possession for nonpayment of the rent due. For the purpose of this subdivision, rent due does not include any accelerated indebtedness because of a breach of the lease under which the premises are held.

    (b) When a person holds over premises for 24 hours following service of a written demand for possession for termination of the lease pursuant to a clause in the lease providing for termination because a tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or other person under the tenant's control has unlawfully manufactured, delivered, possessed with intent to deliver, or possessed a controlled substance on the leased premises. This subdivision applies only if a formal police report has been filed alleging that the person has unlawfully manufactured, delivered, possessed with intent to deliver, or possessed a controlled substance on the leased premises. For purposes of this subdivision, "controlled substance" means a substance or a counterfeit substance classified in schedule 1, 2, or 3 pursuant to sections 7211 to 7216 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7211 to 333.7216.

    (c) When a person holds over premises in 1 or more of the following circumstances:

    (i) After termination of the lease, pursuant to a power to terminate provided in the lease or implied by law.

    (ii) After the term for which the premises are demised to the person or to the person under whom he or she holds.

    (iii) After the termination of the person's estate by a notice to quit as provided by section 34 of 1846 RS 66, MCL 554.134.

    (d) When the person in possession willfully or negligently causes a serious and continuing health hazard to exist on the premises, or causes extensive and continuing physical injury to the premises, which was discovered or should reasonably have been discovered by the party seeking possession not earlier than 90 days before the institution of proceedings under this chapter and when the person in possession neglects or refuses for 7 days after service of a demand for possession of the premises to deliver up possession of the premises or to substantially restore or repair the premises.

    (e) When a person holds over premises for 7 days following service of a written notice to quit for termination of the lease after the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or a person under the tenant's control, on real property owned or operated by the tenant's landlord, has caused or threatened physical injury to an individual. This subdivision applies only if the police department with jurisdiction has been notified that the person, on real property owned or operated by the tenant's landlord, caused or threatened physical injury to an individual. This subdivision does not apply in either of the following cases:

    (i) The individual who was physically injured or threatened is the tenant or a member of the tenant's household.

    (ii) Application would result in a violation of federal housing regulations.

    (f) When a person takes possession of premises by means of a forcible entry, holds possession of premises by force after a peaceable entry, or comes into possession of premises by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. This remedy is in addition to the remedy of entry permitted under section 5711(3).

    (g) When a person continues in possession of premises sold by virtue of a mortgage or execution, after the time limited by law for redemption of the premises.

    (h) When a person continues in possession of premises sold and conveyed by a personal representative under license from the probate court or under authority in the will.

    (2) A tenant or occupant of housing operated by a city, village, township, or other unit of local government, as provided in 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 18, MCL 125.651 to 125.709c, is not considered to be holding over under subsection (1)(b) or (c) unless the tenancy or agreement has been terminated for just cause, as provided by lawful rules of the local housing commission or by law.

    (3) A tenant of a mobile home park is not considered to be holding over under subsection (1)(b) or (c) unless the tenancy or lease agreement is terminated for just cause pursuant to chapter 57a.

History: Add. 1972, Act 120, Eff. July 1, 1972 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 336, Eff. May 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 310, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 1990 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 105, Eff. Sept. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 139, Imd. Eff. May 22, 2012 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 223, Eff. Sept. 24, 2014

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: People v. March
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. March (2016) mich “] ” MCL 600.5714(l)(d). This action thus complements an action for possession, but does not give rise to a right to possession.”
K.V.G. Props., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co. (2018) ca6 “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714 (d) (permitting summary eviction in limited circumstances, including when the tenant is causing a "continuing health hazard").”
De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero (1993) michctapp · cites it 3× “” MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714. [Emphasis added.”
Rental Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand Rapids (1997) mich · cites it 2× “[3] This opinion does not address the authority of other levels of local government to abate nuisances as that authority may vary under different controlling statutes.”
Ypsilanti Housing Commission v. O'Day (2000) michctapp · cites it 3× “of the act, MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714, provides certain instances when a landlord may recover possession of the premises through summary proceedings, including in pertinent part: (1) A person entitled to premises may recover possession of the premises by summary proceedings in…”
Abdullah El-Seblani v. IndyMac Mortgage Services (2013) ca6 “Michigan courts have long held that a mortgagor may challenge the validity of a statutory foreclosure either through “summary proceedings” in the Michigan courts pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714 , or by filing a separate lawsuit, as El-Seblani did here.”
Houston v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage Wisconsin Servicing (2012) ca6 “”); see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714 (l)(g) (authorizing summary proceedings after redemption).”
New Products Corporation v. Harbor Shores Bhbt Land Development (2014) michctapp “2932(1) to recover possession if that person would be able to obtain relief using the summary proceedings available under MCL 600.5714. See MCL 600.2932(2). The Legislature did not address the full extent of the relief available in a claim under MCL 600.”
Ahmad v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2012) mied · cites it 2× “Stated differently, given that Michigan law does not divest a mortgagor of the right to raise procedural defects in the foreclosure process in a summary eviction proceeding — -a proceeding that necessarily occurs after the statutory redemption period, see Mich. Comp. Laws §…”
Mark Mills v. County of Lapeer (2012) ca6 · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714 (l)(f). The summary-proceedings statute does not require landowners to follow such procedures, however, see id.”
Abraham Elsheick v. Select Portfolio Servicing (2014) ca6 “Because “Michigan courts have long held that a mortgagor may challenge the validity of a statutory foreclosure either through ‘summary proceedings’ in the Michigan courts pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714 , or by filing a separate lawsuit,” El-Seblani, 510 Fed.”
Manufacturers Hanover Mortgage Corp. v. Snell (1985) michctapp “MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714; Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v Win- *554 gate, 404 Mich 661, 676, fn 5 ; 273 NW2d 456 (1979).”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1) — 5 cases
De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero (1993) michctapp “” MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714. [Emphasis added.”
Ypsilanti Housing Commission v. O'Day (2000) michctapp “of the act, MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714, provides certain instances when a landlord may recover possession of the premises through summary proceedings, including in pertinent part: (1) A person entitled to premises may recover possession of the premises by summary proceedings in…”
Bank of America v. 5-3 Greenway Trust (2015) michctapp
Robert Briggs v. Vanessa Mason (2023) michctapp
Debra Nash v. David Kerti (2023) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(a) — 2 cases
Debra Nash v. David Kerti (2023) michctapp
Dodson v. Nava Lopez (2023) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(b)(iii) — 2 cases
Park Forest of Blackman v. Smith (1982) michctapp
Woods v. Hall (1994) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(c) — 2 cases
De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero (1993) michctapp “” MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714. [Emphasis added.”
Dutch Baker v. Roy Betham (2023) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(c)(i) — 1 case
20250130_C364749_54_364749.Opn.Pdf (2025) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(c)(iii) — 1 case
Woods v. Hall (1994) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(d) — 3 cases
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (2019) michctapp
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (2019) michctapp
Suzzette Barnaby v. Pci (2015) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(1)(g) — 5 cases
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Sue Ellen Radulovich (2019) michctapp
Bank of America v. 5-3 Greenway Trust (2015) michctapp
Ryan Dykstra v. Bruce a Craigie (2016) michctapp
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Lesa Werme (2021) michctapp
Talbot v. US Bank National Association (2019) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(2) — 1 case
Park Forest of Blackman v. Smith (1982) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(g) — 1 case
Melissa Seymore v. Adams Realty (2016) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(l)(b) — 1 case
Ypsilanti Housing Commission v. O'Day (2000) michctapp “of the act, MCL 600.5714; MSA 27A.5714, provides certain instances when a landlord may recover possession of the premises through summary proceedings, including in pertinent part: (1) A person entitled to premises may recover possession of the premises by summary proceedings in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(l)(c)(iii) — 1 case
United States v. Hunyady (2003) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(l)(d) — 1 case
People v. March (2016) mich “] ” MCL 600.5714(l)(d). This action thus complements an action for possession, but does not give rise to a right to possession.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(l)(e) — 1 case
United States v. Hunyady (2003) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5714(l)(g) — 1 case
Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co. (2016) michctapp
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.