Michigan's new anti-SLAPP law changes what it costs a board to sue a critic
Michigan's new anti-SLAPP law changes what it costs a board to sue a critic
2026-09-12 · Michigan · Courts
What happened. Michigan's first substantial anti-SLAPP statute took effect on 24 March 2026. The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, 2025 PA 52 (House Bill 4045), was signed on 23 December 2025 and is codified at MCL 691.1851 to 691.1863.1
It is the most consequential change to the economics of Michigan association disputes in this legislative session, and it did not come from a housing bill.
What the statute does
It creates a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss an “eligible cause of action” — one based on a communication in a governmental proceeding, on an issue under review in one, or on the exercise of the rights of speech, press, assembly, petition or association on a matter of public concern.
The mechanics are aggressive by design:
- The motion must be filed not later than 60 days after service, or later on good cause.
- Filing it automatically stays all other proceedings, including discovery, and any pending hearing or motion.
- The court must hear the motion within 60 days and rule within 60 days of the hearing.
- A denial is appealable as of right within 21 days.
- Section 10: the court shall award court costs, reasonable attorney fees and reasonable litigation expenses to a prevailing movant. The responding party recovers only if the motion was frivolous or filed solely to delay.
It applies to actions filed, and causes of action asserted, on or after the effective date.
Why an association board is squarely in scope
Because the conduct that triggers the statute is the conduct association disputes are made of. A defamation or tortious-interference claim brought by a board or a manager against an owner who:
- posted on a community Facebook group about the reserve fund or an insurance decision;
- circulated a petition to recall directors;
- spoke at a township or city council meeting about the association's stormwater basin or private roads;
- filed a complaint with LARA, DIFS or the Attorney General;
- wrote to a lender or a prospective purchaser about the project's finances,
is a claim based on petitioning or on speech about a matter of public concern — and it now meets an early motion that freezes discovery and carries mandatory fee-shifting if it fails.
The discovery stay is the part that hits boards hardest. A common litigation posture in these disputes is that the association's real objective is the deposition and the document demand, not the judgment. The stay removes that objective from the table at day sixty.
It cuts the other way too
This is not a one-directional statute, and framing it as an owners' weapon misreads it.
- A board member sued personally for statements made at an association meeting, in a newsletter, or to a municipality has the same motion.
- A manager or management company sued over a report to a regulator has it.
- An owner sued by another owner — the neighbour-versus-neighbour defamation case that associations get dragged into — has it, and the association may find the case against it collapsing on someone else's motion.
The carve-outs matter as much. Section 2(2) excludes commercial speech by a seller or lessor about their own goods and services, and excludes claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, workers' compensation, FOIA, and the federal employment and disability statutes. A discrimination claim against an association is not answerable with this motion.
What changes now for a Michigan board
Change the threshold question before authorising litigation. The question is no longer “do we have a claim?” It is “is this claim based on the owner's speech or petitioning, and if a court says yes, can we carry the other side's fees?”
Read the insurance. D&O policies vary widely on whether they fund an association's affirmative claims and on whether a statutory fee award against the association is an insured loss. Boards that assumed the policy absorbs this should confirm it in writing.
Separate enforcement from reputation. Assessment collection, covenant enforcement and injunctive relief over an unapproved structure are not speech-based claims and are untouched. The statute reaches the defamation count that gets bolted onto them. Bolting it on is now materially riskier than it was in 2025.
What to watch next
The first Michigan appellate decisions applying section 3's “matter of public concern” test to a private residential community. Whether internal association governance is a matter of public concern, or a private dispute among contracting parties, is the question that decides most of these motions — and Michigan has no answer yet.
Related Michigan HOA Topics
Stay on top of Michigan HOA law
Every week: new Michigan legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.