Hexloom Guides← Michigan landlord guide

Michigan Tenant Defenses and Retaliation in Eviction: MCL 600.5720

MCL 600.5720(1) says a judgment for possession of the premises for an alleged termination of tenancy “shall not be entered against a defendant if 1 or more of the following is established.” Seven grounds follow, (a) through (g): terminations intended as a penalty or as retribution, local-government housing terminated without cause, increased obligations as a penalty, a landlord breach that excuses rent, and rent paid in specified ways. Subsection (2) adds a presumption in favor of the retaliation defense when the defendant shows official action within 90 days before the commencement of summary proceedings.

The seven grounds in subsection (1)

(a) Penalty for securing or enforcing rights

“That the alleged termination was intended primarily as a penalty for the defendant’s attempt to secure or enforce rights under the lease or agreement or under the laws of the state, of a governmental subdivision of this state, or of the United States.” The text asks what the termination was intended primarily to be; it does not list examples of protected attempts.

(b) Penalty for a health or safety complaint

“That the alleged termination was intended primarily as a penalty for the defendant’s complaint to a governmental authority with a report of plaintiff’s violation of a health or safety code or ordinance.” The ground requires a complaint to a governmental authority reporting a violation of a health or safety code or ordinance.

(c) Retribution for a lawful act arising out of the tenancy

“That the alleged termination was intended primarily as retribution for a lawful act arising out of the tenancy, including membership in a tenant organization and a lawful activity of a tenant organization arising out of the tenancy.” The text names tenant-organization membership and activity as included and lists no other examples.

(d) Local-government housing terminated without cause

“That the alleged termination was of a tenancy in housing operated by a city, village, township, or other unit of local government and was terminated without cause.” The text does not define cause. Separately, MCL 600.5714(2) says a tenant or occupant of such housing is not considered to be holding over under 5714(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.

(e) Increased obligations as a penalty

“That the plaintiff attempted to increase the defendant’s obligations under the lease or contract as a penalty for the lawful acts as are described in subdivisions (a) to (c) and that the defendant’s failure to perform the additional obligations was the primary reason for the alleged termination of tenancy.” Both parts are required: the attempted increase as a penalty, and the failure to perform the additional obligations as the primary reason for the termination. The text does not say what kinds of increases count.

(f) Landlord breach that excuses rent

“That the plaintiff committed a breach of the lease which excuses the payment of rent if possession is claimed for nonpayment of rent.” The text does not say which breaches excuse rent. MCL 600.5741 separately says that in determining the amount due under a tenancy the judge or jury shall deduct rent found to be excused by the plaintiff’s breach of the lease or of the covenants in MCL 554.139. The text does not say how the two rules interact in a given case.

(g) Rent paid into escrow, under a court order, or to a receiver

In an action where possession is claimed for nonpayment of rent, the rent allegedly due was paid into an escrow account under section 130 of Act 167 of 1917, paid pursuant to a court order under section 134(5) of that Act, or paid to a receiver under section 135 of that Act. Those sections are outside these files; ask a Michigan attorney.

The 90-day retaliation presumption (subsection (2))

A presumption in favor of the defense of retaliatory termination arises when a defendant who alleges retaliatory termination shows that:

  1. within 90 days before the commencement of summary proceedings the defendant attempted to secure or enforce rights against the plaintiff, or to complain against the plaintiff, as provided in subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), or (e);
  2. the attempt or complaint was made by means of official action to or through a court or other governmental agency; and
  3. the official action has not resulted in dismissal or denial of the attempt or complaint.

The presumption applies “unless the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination of tenancy was not in retaliation for the acts.” It is tied to (1)(a), (b), (c) and (e), not to (d), (f) or (g). The text does not define official action; ask a Michigan attorney if a tenant raises it.

The second sentence of subsection (2) covers the opposite case. If the defendant’s attempt or complaint “occurred more than 90 days before the commencement of proceedings or was terminated adversely to the defendant,” a presumption adverse to the defense arises and the defendant has the burden to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Common mistakes

When to see a Michigan attorney

A retaliation defense depends on facts about intent and timing. If a tenant raises any ground in subsection (1), especially with official action inside the 90-day window, see a Michigan landlord-tenant attorney before the hearing.

Checked against the text published on legislature.mi.gov on 5 October 2026.

Sources

Related guides

Informational only, not legal advice. Statute text checked against the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL 554.131 to 554.139, 554.601 to 554.616, 554.631 to 554.641 and 600.2918, 600.5701 to 600.5759) as published at legislature.mi.gov on October 5, 2026. Statutes change and a court may read them differently than a summary does; for a dispute, an eviction or anything expensive to get wrong, talk to a Michigan landlord-tenant attorney.

Want the complete picture? The Michigan Small Landlord Compliance Guide puts the security deposit, lease, notice and eviction rules of the Michigan Compiled Laws in one place, with each rule cited to the statute text.

Get the guide — $29

Get a note when landlord law changes

Landlord statutes change. Confirm your email and we will send a short note when a rule changes in a state we cover (California, Florida, Texas, Arizona) and when a new state guide ships. At most once a week, one-click unsubscribe. Privacy.