Whether the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (MCL 445.901 et seq.) barred plaintiffs’ claims arising from their residential leases; De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero; Trade or commerce defined; MCL 445.902(g); Exception in MCL 445.904(1)(a); Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc.; The Housing Law (MCL 125.401 et seq.); MCL 125.529; MCL 125.523; MCL 125.534(8); Detroit Ordinances § 9-1-35(d)(11); Failure to disclose the lack of certificates of compliance for residential rental properties; Whether the Legislature intended for the MCPA to apply; Statutory interpretation; Universal Underwriters Ins. Group v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; In pari materia; SBC Health Midwest, Inc. v. City of Kentwood; Fraud; Pleading with particularity; MCR 2.112(B)(1); State ex rel Gurganus v. CVS Caremark Corp.; Determining the gravamen of an action; Adams v. Adams; Opportunity to amend the complaints; PT Today, Inc. v. Commissioner of Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs.; Hayford v. Hayford; Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Waiver; Braverman v. Granger; Futility; Lane v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs., Inc.; Delay; Weymers v. Khera; MCR 2.118(A)(4); Lown v. JJ Eaton Place; Importance of the submission of a written proposed amended complaint; Anton, Sowerby & Assoc., Inc. v. Mr C’S Lake Orion, LLC; Failure to cite supporting authority; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; Ability to file motions to amend when responding to a summary disposition motion; Sharp v. City of Lansing; Ability to file motions to amend after the grant of summary disposition; Jackson v. White Castle Sys. Inc.

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to defendants because the MCPA did not apply in the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs were tenants and former tenants in defendants’ residential rental buildings. They argued, among other things, that “defendants violated the MCPA by failing to disclose to plaintiffs that defendants did not have certificates of compliance for their residential rental properties.” However, under MCL 445.904(1)(a), the MCPA does not apply to “[a] transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” Relevant here, Detroit “passed ordinances governing when landlords of residential rental properties must obtain certificates of compliance and the penalties a landlord faces for failing to do so.” Landlords in the city “are not permitted to rent residential property without a certificate of compliance.” Further, the “Housing Law of Michigan grants municipalities, like Detroit, the authority to enforce its provisions through such ordinances.” Therefore, the “general transaction of whether a landlord in Detroit may rent his or her residential property without a certificate of compliance is specifically addressed by Detroit’s ordinances.” Finally, “when determining whether the MCPA’s ‘specifically authorized’ exception applies to a given case ‘the relevant inquiry is whether the general transaction is specifically authorized by law, regardless of whether the specific misconduct alleged is prohibited.’” The court concluded that the “general transaction of a landlord leasing residential property in Detroit is specifically authorized by Detroit’s ordinances and, therefore, the MCPA does not apply to the circumstances of this case even though ‘the specific misconduct alleged,’ leasing residential rental property without first obtaining certificates of compliance, is prohibited by Detroit’s ordinances.” Affirmed.