Michigan lawAttorney FeesConsumer ProtectionLandlord TenantTaxAccounting

Security Deposit Return in Michigan

September 27, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

Start with Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 554.601 to 554.616. In Michigan, The cap is 1.5 months' rent. The return deadline is 30 days after the tenant moves out, with an itemized list of deductions. Interest: No statewide interest requirement. That is the question this guide answers for getting a security deposit back. Wrongful withholding can support damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees.

Deposit limits in Michigan

1.5 months' rent

When the deposit must be returned

30 days after the tenant moves out, with an itemized list of deductions

How the Michigan rule applies

Apply the Michigan authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.

A residential tenant moves out of a Michigan rental and the landlord has not returned the deposit.

Check the cap that applied when the deposit was collected: 1.5 months' rent.
Calendar the return deadline: 30 days after the tenant moves out, with an itemized list of deductions
Interest, if any: No statewide interest requirement.
If the landlord keeps money without the required accounting: Wrongful withholding can support damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees.

Michigan caps most residential security deposits at one and one-half months’ rent and requires return with itemization within 30 days. Double damages apply for wrongful withholding. District court handles many disputes.

Interest and accounting

No statewide interest requirement.

Penalties for wrongful withholding

Wrongful withholding can support damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees.

Practical process for tenants and landlords

Document the unit with dated photos or video at move-in and move-out, keep the lease and any inspection checklist, and send a dated written demand if the deadline passes without a lawful accounting.

Case law: security deposits in Michigan

Liberty Hill Housing Corporation v. City of Livonia — Weaver, J., concurring

Liberty Hill Housing Corporation v. City of Livonia — Weaver, J., concurring, 480 Mich. 44 (2008)

…s late fees when the deadline for rent passes, and requires security deposits. Petitioner requested a tax exemption from respondent city of Livonia for tax years 2003 and 2004, arguing that it qualified for exemption as a charitable organization occupying property in furtherance of its charitable purpose. The case was heard in the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT), which denied petit…

On security deposits, Liberty Hill Housing Corporation v. City of Livonia — Weaver, J., concurring speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Petitioner requested a tax exemption from respondent city of Livonia for tax years 2003 and 2004, arguing that it qualified for exemption as a charitable organization occupying property in furtherance of its charitable purpose." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

De Bruyn Produce Company v. Romero

De Bruyn Produce Company v. Romero, 202 Mich. App. 92 (1993)

…t to determine whether the deposit on the mobile home was a security deposit within the meaning of the landlord-tenant relationship act, MCL 554.601 et seq.; MSA 26.1138(1) et seq. Lastly, plaintiff sought a declaration regarding the applicability of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq.; MSA 19.418(1) et seq., and the Truth in Renting Act, MCL 554.631 et se…

Michigan opinions such as De Bruyn Produce Company v. Romero are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "MCL 554.601 et seq.; MSA 26.1138(1) et seq. Lastly, plaintiff sought a declaration regarding the applicability of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq.; MSA 19.418(1) et seq., and the Truth in Renting Act, MCL 554." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Brodsky v. Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc.

Brodsky v. Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc., 1 Mich. App. 591 (1965)

…or modifications.” This instrument also provided for $9,000 security deposit; $1,000 to be paid by the intended lessee at the signing of the agreement; $4,000 upon completion of building plans; and an additional $4,000 upon completion of the building. It also required the lease to contain all the provisions of the Detroit Real Estate Board Form—Business Property Lease. The prem…

Brodsky v. Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc. is worth reading on Michigan security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "This instrument also provided for $9,000 security deposit; $1,000 to be paid by the intended lessee at the signing of the agreement; $4,000 upon completion of building plans; and an additional $4,000 upon completion of the building." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Stutelberg v. Practical Management Company

Stutelberg v. Practical Management Company, 70 Mich. App. 325 (1976)

…days of termination of the tenancy double the amount of the security deposit retained computed with the non-refundable fee as a part of the security deposit. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction requiring defendants to refrain from charging non-refundable cleaning fees in the future. "Defendants have brought motions for summary judgment claiming numerous reasons including: (1) Th…

On security deposits, Stutelberg v. Practical Management Company speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Plaintiffs also seek an injunction requiring defendants to refrain from charging non-refundable cleaning fees in the future." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments, Ltd.

Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments, Ltd., 127 Mich. App. 108 (1983)

…ments, Ltd., managed the complex. The lease required a $420 security deposit and subjected refund of the deposit to the following conditions: "b. No damage to property beyond ordinary wear and tear resulting from careful usage. "c. The entire apartment including range, refrigerator, bathroom, closet and cupboards have been cleaned.” Plaintiffs vacated their apartment September…

Practitioners open Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments, Ltd. when Michigan security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ltd., managed the complex. The lease required a $420 security deposit and subjected refund of the deposit to the following conditions: 'b. No damage to property beyond ordinary wear and tear resulting from careful usage. 'c." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Plaza Investment Company v. Abel

Plaza Investment Company v. Abel, 8 Mich. App. 19 (1993)

…nt — Deposit —Recoupment, 24 Colum L Rev 432 (1924), and in Security Deposits and Guaranties under Leases, 1 Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 405, 420. 15 Tlie matter is also diseussed in Coffin v. Tolman, supra (accepting as a general principle the rule establishing such transferee liability, but finding that the convenant tliere before the court was not a continuing o…

Michigan opinions such as Plaza Investment Company v. Abel are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "Deposit —Recoupment, 24 Colum L Rev 432 (1924), and in Security Deposits and Guaranties under Leases, 1 Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 405, 420. 15 Tlie matter is also diseussed in Coffin v." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Hovanesian v. Nam

Hovanesian v. Nam, 213 Mich. App. 231 (1995)

…tiff written notice of his reasons for retaining plaintiffs security deposit under the Landlord-Tenant Relationships Act, MCL 554.601 et seq.; MSA 26.1138(1) et seq. He asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on his conversion claim and on his count under the Consumer Protection Act. MCL 600.2919a; MSA 27A.2919(1); MCL 445.903; MSA 19.418(3). Finally,…

Practitioners open Hovanesian v. Nam when Michigan security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Landlord-Tenant Relationships Act, MCL 554.601 et seq.; MSA 26.1138(1) et seq. He asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on his conversion claim and on his count under the Consumer Protection Act. MCL 600.2919a; MSA 27A.2919(1); MCL 445.903; MSA 19." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Nelson v. Grays

Nelson v. Grays, 209 Mich. App. 661 (1995)

…to an oral lease. Under the lease, plaintiff paid $250 as a security deposit and $250 a month in rent, and defendant agreed to pay the electric bill. Plaintiff and her two minor children moved into the mobile home in September 1990 and lived there until June 1991, when the electric service to the mobile home was terminated because defendant failed to pay the electric bill. Beca…

Practitioners open Nelson v. Grays when Michigan security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Under the lease, plaintiff paid $250 as a security deposit and $250 a month in rent, and defendant agreed to pay the electric bill." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Key takeaways

Maximum deposit: 1.5 months' rent
Return deadline: 30 days after the tenant moves out, with an itemized list of deductions
Interest: No statewide interest requirement.
Penalties: Wrongful withholding can support damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees.
Primary authority: Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 554.601 to 554.616.

Frequently asked questions

How much can a landlord charge for a security deposit in Michigan?