Retaliation And Eviction Defenses
MCL 600.5720 — when a court may not enter a judgment for possession
A judgment for possession may not be entered if the tenant establishes any of these:
- The eviction was intended primarily as a penalty for trying to secure or enforce rights under the lease or under state, local or federal law.
- It was intended primarily as a penalty for complaining to a government authority about a health or safety code violation.
- It was intended primarily as retribution for a lawful act arising from the tenancy, including membership and lawful activity in a tenant organization.
- The landlord raised the tenant's obligations as a penalty for those acts, and not meeting them is the main reason for the eviction.
- In public housing run by a local government, the tenancy was ended without cause.
- In a case for unpaid rent, the landlord broke the lease in a way that excuses paying rent.
- In a case for unpaid rent, the rent was paid into escrow, under a court order, or to a receiver under the housing law sections the statute names.
90 days decides which side has to prove it. Where the tenant shows that, within 90 days before the eviction case began, they tried to enforce rights or complained through a court or government agency, and that action was not dismissed or denied, the law presumes retaliation unless the landlord proves otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. Where it was more than 90 days before, or went against the tenant, the presumption runs the other way and the tenant carries the burden.
How a defense is raised in the eviction case is set by court rules and is not covered here.
Sources for this section (1)
- MCL 600.5720 — Retaliatory eviction and other defenses to a judgment for possession
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Applying it to a particular situation is the work of a licensed Michigan attorney.