DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Michigan: what the law says

Michigan is the unusual one. In Pennsylvania and California, learning that a squatter is not a tenant is bad news for an owner: it closes the fast eviction track, because that track was built for landlords. Michigan wrote the squatter into the fast track instead — the summary-proceedings statute names possession by trespass without color of title as its own ground, and where that is proved a judge may order the writ immediately. Michigan also has a criminal statute written for this exact situation, graded high enough that an officer may arrest without having watched anyone break in. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from. One bill, now sitting in a House committee, would change a great deal of it.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No — and in Michigan that is genuinely good news, which is not true everywhere. A squatter has none of a tenant's protections, and Michigan still lets you use the fast eviction track against them.

›Read the law

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

MCL 600.2918(5) — Unlawful interference with a possessory interest

“(5) An owner's actions do not unlawfully interfere with an occupant's possession of premises if the occupant took possession by means of a forcible entry, holds possession by force, or came into possession by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest.”

Michigan has no single sentence declaring "a squatter is not a tenant" the way Pennsylvania's Act 88 of 2024 does. What it has is three provisions that hold them apart: MCL 600.2918(5), above, strips the tenant's anti-lockout protection; MCL 600.5714(1)(f) makes trespass without color of title its own ground for summary proceedings; and MCL 750.553 makes occupying a one- or two-family dwelling without the owner's consent a crime. Note which way that cuts. In Pennsylvania and California, not being a tenant CLOSES the fast eviction track, because the track exists only inside landlord-tenant law. In Michigan the trespass ground sits INSIDE the summary-proceedings chapter, so it opens it.

Read it at the source →

Can I just change the locks?

Depends — and do not carry an answer in from another state, because Michigan's is not the usual one. The statute says an owner may re-enter where the occupant got in by trespassing with no claim of right at all. But if you are wrong about that, the person you put out can be restored to the house and recover three times their damages. Whether they have a claim of right is the one thing you cannot settle at the door, and we will not tell anyone to make that call for themselves.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · MCL 600.5711 — Entry (as amended by 2023 PA 202, eff. Feb. 13, 2024)

“(1) A person shall not make any entry into or upon premises unless the entry is permitted by law. (2) Subject to subsection (3), if entry is permitted by law, the person shall not enter with force but only in a peaceable manner. (3) If the occupant took possession of the premises by means of a forcible entry, holds possession of the premises by force, or came into possession of the premises by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest, the owner, lessor, or licensor or an agent thereof may enter the premises and subsection (2) does not apply to the entry. However, any forcible entry shall not include conduct proscribed by chapter XI of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.81 to 750.90g.”

Read what subsection (3) turns on. It is not a fact about the owner; it is a fact about the OCCUPANT — whether they came in "without color of title or other possessory interest." A lease produced at the door is a claim to exactly that. Read also what the exception does not reach: chapter XI of the penal code is the assault chapter, and it is carved out.

Read it at the source →

2 · MCL 600.2918(5)–(7)

“(5) An owner's actions do not unlawfully interfere with an occupant's possession of premises if the occupant took possession by means of a forcible entry, holds possession by force, or came into possession by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. (6) A person who has lost possession or whose possessory interest has been unlawfully interfered with may, if that person does not peacefully regain possession, bring an action for possession under section 5714(1)(f) or bring a claim for injunctive relief in the appropriate circuit court. … (7) The provisions of this section may not be waived.”

Read it at the source →

3 · MCL 600.2918(1)–(2) — Damages for forcible entry and detainer

“(1) Any person who is ejected or put out of any lands or tenements in a forcible and unlawful manner, or being out is afterwards held and kept out, by force, is entitled to recover 3 times the amount of his or her actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, in addition to recovering possession. (2) Any tenant in possession of premises whose possessory interest has been unlawfully interfered with by the owner is entitled to recover the amount of his or her actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, for each occurrence and, if possession has been lost, to recover possession. Subject to subsection (3), unlawful interference with a possessory interest includes 1 or more of the following: … (c) Changing, altering, or adding to the locks or other security devices on the property without immediately providing keys or other unlocking devices to the person in possession.”

This is the price of misreading subsection (5), and the exposure is the owner's, not ours. Whether an occupant has "color of title or other possessory interest" is a question a court answers afterwards, on evidence — the owner is guessing at it in a doorway, against a person holding a document. DeedProof does not advise on removing anyone from a building, does not template it, and does not help with it. These are the provisions, in order. We draw no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Depends which law the officer reaches for. Michigan has a crime written for exactly this — living in a house without the owner's consent — and it carries up to 180 days, which is over the line that lets an officer arrest on reasonable cause even though he never saw them move in. Ordinary trespass carries 30 days, and for that one he has to catch them in the act.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · MCL 750.553 — Occupancy of building without consent (2014 PA 224)

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner's consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both. (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.”

Note the reach and the limit. It covers a single-family dwelling, or one or both units of a two-family dwelling — on its face it does not reach a larger apartment building, a commercial building, or a vacant lot. And every element runs back through the owner: whose consent, on what agreed-upon consideration.

Read it at the source →

2 · MCL 750.552 — Trespass upon lands or premises of another, and its grading

“(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not do any of the following: (a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant. (b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant. … (3) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.”

This is the fork. The same person in the same house can be written up under either section, and the two are graded 150 days apart. Which one is chosen at the door is not decided by either statute.

Read it at the source →

3 · MCL 764.15(1) — Arrest by officer without warrant

“(1) A peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person in any of the following situations: (a) A felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation is committed in the peace officer's presence. (b) The person has committed a felony although not in the peace officer's presence. (c) A felony in fact has been committed and the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person committed it. (d) The peace officer has reasonable cause to believe a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days or a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe the person committed it.”

Lay the three links side by side, and stop there — the conclusion is not ours to draw. MCL 750.553 carries 180 days on a first offense. MCL 750.552 carries 30. MCL 764.15(1)(d) speaks to a misdemeanor "punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days"; MCL 764.15(1)(a) speaks to an offense "committed in the peace officer's presence." A squatter moved in weeks ago, and no officer saw it happen. This is the exact link on which a previous market thesis died in Ohio — there the charge graded out below the arrest line. Michigan's dedicated squatting offense is graded above it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Consent — whether the officer believes you ever gave it. Every route in Michigan turns on that one fact: the crime, the fast eviction ground, even the provision that would let an owner re-enter. And nothing in any of them tells the officer how to find out who owns the building, so if the lease in the occupant's hand might be real, he leaves it for the courts.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 2 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · MCL 750.553(1)–(2) — the words the officer has to satisfy himself of

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner's consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime … (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.”

Every element points back at the owner: whose consent, on what agreed-upon consideration, and whether this person is a guest or a family member. The section says nothing about how an officer standing at the door establishes who the owner is, and we found no Michigan provision that does.

Read it at the source →

2 · MCL 600.5714(1)(f) — the ground that opens the fast track, and what it turns on

“(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).”

The criminal branch, the civil branch and the re-entry provision all fail on the same unanswered question: did this person have permission from someone entitled to give it? Michigan's law says what follows once that is settled. It does not say how anyone settles it at 2am.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

Summary proceedings, in district court — and Michigan's fast track is open to you, which is the opposite of Pennsylvania. The statute names a person who came in by trespass as its own ground for possession, and where that is proved a judge may order them out immediately instead of making you wait.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · MCL 600.5714(1)(f) — Summary proceedings to recover possession of premises

“(1) A person entitled to possession of premises may recover possession by summary proceedings in the following circumstances: … (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 is the finding that separates Michigan from Pennsylvania. There, a squatter is not a tenant, so the summary track is closed and the owner files a full civil suit that runs for months. Here the trespass case is written into the summary chapter itself.

Read it at the source →

2 · MCL 600.5744(3), (5) — Issuance of writ of restitution

“(3) On conditions determined by the court, a writ of restitution may be issued immediately after the entry of a judgment for possession if any of the following is pleaded and proved, with notice, to the satisfaction of the court: … (b) Forcible entry was made contrary to law. (c) Entry was made peaceably but possession is unlawfully held by force. (d) The defendant came into possession by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. … (5) If subsections (3) and (4) do not apply, a writ of restitution must not be issued until the expiration of 10 days after the entry of the judgment for possession.”

Note who decides. The writ issues "on conditions determined by the court", and only where the trespass is "pleaded and proved, with notice, to the satisfaction of the court." A judge signs. That is the difference between Michigan and the sheriff-affidavit states, and it is the whole difference.

Read it at the source →

3 · MCL 600.5750 — Summary proceedings not exclusive of other remedies

“The remedy provided by summary proceedings is in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies, either legal, equitable or statutory. A judgment for possession under this chapter does not merge or bar any other claim for relief … The plaintiff obtaining a judgment for possession of any premises under this chapter is entitled to a civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be.”

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Weeks, not months. The statute sets the clock — a court date inside about ten days, and the hearing itself within a week of that — and it sets the filing fee for a possession-only case at $45.00. What you do not get back is your lawyer.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · MCL 600.5735(2), (6) — Summons; hearing

“(2) A summons issued under this section shall command the defendant to appear for trial as follows: … (b) Within 10 days of the issuance date of the summons in all other proceedings, in which event the summons shall be served not less than 3 days before the date set for trial. … (6) Except as otherwise provided by court rule, a summary proceeding shall be heard within 7 days after the defendant's appearance or trial date and shall not be adjourned beyond that time other than by stipulation of the parties either in writing or on the record.”

These are the statute's clocks, not a prediction. A contested case, a counterclaim, an adjournment by stipulation, or an appeal under MCL 600.5753 all run longer. The Michigan courts publish no duration data for possession cases, and we did not invent one — "weeks" here is the statutory clock and nothing more.

Read it at the source →

2 · MCL 600.5756(1) — Filing fees

“(1) If the complaint is for the recovery of possession of premises only, the fee for filing a proceeding under this chapter is $45.00.”

That is the court's filing fee for a possession-only complaint, and nothing else. Service of process, the writ of restitution, a court officer's time and a lawyer are all separate — and they are the larger numbers.

Read it at the source →

3 · MCL 600.5759(1) — Costs in summary proceedings

“(1) In proceedings under this chapter, costs may be allowed in the same amounts as are provided by law in other civil actions in the same court, except that the costs provided by section 2441 shall not apply. The court may also allow as taxable costs an amount not exceeding the following: (a) For a motion that results in dismissal or judgment, $75.00. (b) For a judgment taken by default or consent, $75.00. (c) For the trial of a claim for possession only, $150.00.”

Read it at the source →

4 · MCL 600.2405(6) — Costs; items taxable

“The following items may be taxed and awarded as costs unless otherwise directed: … (6) Any attorney fees authorized by statute or by court rule.”

This is a claim about OUR SEARCH, not an assertion about the law: we read Chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.5701 to 600.5759) section by section on 2026-07-14 and found no provision awarding a prevailing owner their attorney fees in a possession case. You also have no contract with a squatter to put a fee-shifting clause into. Confirm with counsel before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

No. Michigan has no law today letting a sheriff put someone out on the owner's word alone; every route runs past a judge. A bill introduced in September 2025 would create one, and it has sat in committee without a hearing ever since.

›Read the law

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

What we looked for: Any Michigan statute of the Florida § 82.035 type — an owner's sworn or verified complaint handed to a sheriff or police officer, followed by removal of the occupant with no judge and no court hearing. We read Chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.5701 to 600.5759) section by section on 2026-07-14: every route to possession in it runs through the district court, the court issues the summons (MCL 600.5735), and the writ of restitution issues only after a judgment for possession and only "to the satisfaction of the court" (MCL 600.5744). We also checked for the section HB 4846 would add: MCL 600.5712 does not appear in the chapter's own section index, and the Legislature's document server returns 404 for it.

Michigan HB 4846 (2025–26), the SHIELD Act — proposed MCL 600.5712, introduced text, checked 2026-07-14

“Sec. 5712. (1) A real property owner or the property owner's authorized agent may submit to the sheriff of the county in which the real property is located a completed and verified complaint requesting the immediate removal of an unlawful occupant of a residential dwelling under circumstances set forth in the complaint. … (2) Upon receipt of the complaint, the sheriff shall verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner of the real property or the authorized agent of the owner and appears otherwise entitled to relief under this section. Upon so verifying, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property. Service may be accomplished by hand delivery of the notice to an occupant or by posting the notice on the front door or entrance of the dwelling.”

STATUS AS OF 2026-07-14, from the Legislature's own bill-action history (legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4846): introduced by Rep. Steve Frisbie on 4 September 2025, read a first time, referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. The last entry of any kind is 9 September 2025 ("bill electronically reproduced"). No hearing, no committee vote, no floor vote. THE VERIFICATION GAP IS IN THE BILL ITSELF: it orders the sheriff to "verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner" and then gives him no mechanism to do it — the only thing the complaint form requires the owner to attach is, in the form's own words, "A copy of my valid government-issued identification is attached." The sworn complaint states at item 7 that any lease the occupant produces "is fraudulent", and at item 11 that the owner may be liable for damages, costs and attorney fees if that is false. The bill would also provide that after service the owner "may request that the sheriff stand by to keep the peace while the property owner or agent of the owner changes the locks and removes the personal property of the unlawful occupants from the premises to or near the property line." That is PROPOSED law. It is not the law in Michigan today, and nothing in this paragraph is guidance.

Read it at the source →

How long before they can claim they own it?

15 years. And the clock does not run merely because the house is empty — someone has to be openly, visibly and continuously in possession of it, in front of everybody, for the whole fifteen.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

1 · MCL 600.5801 — Limitation on actions to recover possession of land

“No person may bring or maintain any action for the recovery or possession of any lands or make any entry upon any lands unless, after the claim or right to make the entry first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action or makes the entry within the periods of time prescribed by this section. … (4) In all other cases under this section, the period of limitation is 15 years.”

Read it at the source →

2 · Ginotti v Liess, No. 360522 (Mich Ct App, Jan. 26, 2023) (unpublished), quoting Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439; 499 NW2d 363 (1993) · secondhand source

“A claim of adverse possession requires clear and cogent proof that possession has been actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted for the statutory period of fifteen years. These are not arbitrary requirements, but the logical consequence of someone claiming by adverse possession having the burden of proving that the statute of limitations has expired. To claim by adverse possession, one must show that the property owner of record has had a cause of action for recovery of the land for more than the statutory period.”

SECONDARY, and the label is deliberate. MCL 600.5801 sets the fifteen years; it does not say what possession has to look like. That comes from Michigan case law, and the passage above is the published rule of Kipka v Fountain read INSIDE an unpublished 2023 Court of Appeals opinion — which is the copy we were able to fetch from the Michigan Courts' own server. We did not open the Michigan Appeals Reports text of Kipka itself. Verify against the reporter before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

3 · MCL 600.5821(1)–(2) — Recovery of land or public ground

“(1) An action for the recovery of any land to which this state is a party is not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches. … (2) In an action involving the recovery or the possession of land, including a public highway, street, alley, easement, or other public ground, a municipal corporation, political subdivision of this state, or county road commission is not subject to any of the following: (a) The periods of limitations under this act. (b) Laches. (c) A claim for adverse possession, acquiescence for the statutory period, or a prescriptive easement.”

That immunity belongs to the government, not to a private owner. It is worth knowing in Michigan because so much of the vacant stock is publicly or land-bank held: a private buyer who takes title from such a body takes the fifteen-year clock along with the deed.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

This page is the law. What it costs you in Michigan — the filing fee, the sheriff’s bill, the months, and whether you ever see the money again.

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (16)

MCL 600.2918(1)–(2) — Damages for forcible entry and detainerMCL 600.5711 — Entry (as amended by 2023 PA 202, eff. Feb. 13, 2024)MCL 750.553(1)–(2) — the words the officer has to satisfy himself ofMCL 750.552 — Trespass upon lands or premises of another, and its gradingMCL 764.15(1) — Arrest by officer without warrantMCL 600.5714(1)(f) — Summary proceedings to recover possession of premisesMCL 600.5744(3), (5) — Issuance of writ of restitutionMCL 600.5750 — Summary proceedings not exclusive of other remediesMCL 600.5735(2), (6) — Summons; hearingMCL 600.5756(1) — Filing feesMCL 600.5759(1) — Costs in summary proceedingsMCL 600.2405(6) — Costs; items taxableMichigan HB 4846 (2025–26), the SHIELD Act — proposed MCL 600.5712, introduced text, checked 2026-07-14MCL 600.5801 — Limitation on actions to recover possession of landGinotti v Liess, No. 360522 (Mich Ct App, Jan. 26, 2023) (unpublished), quoting Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439; 499 NW2d 363 (1993)MCL 600.5821(1)–(2) — Recovery of land or public ground

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.