In McLaurin v Miles, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, Plaintiff rented property from defendant. Plaintiff stopped paying rent and defendant filed eviction proceedings, resulting in a judgment requiring plaintiff to vacate by June 25, 2018. Defendant’s wife visited the property on June 14 and observed that plaintiff had moved all of her possessions out of the property, taking photographs to confirm this. She then tried to contact plaintiff repeatedly to confirm she had moved out, but plaintiff did not respond. The wife again visited the property on June 17 and again observed no sign of plaintiff. Defendant informed plaintiff on June 21 that he intended to change the locks on June 27, and did so. Plaintiff returned to the property, changed the locks herself, and defendant changed the locks again. Plaintiff filed suit claiming a violation of the Anti-Lockout Statute, MCL 600.2918, which prohibits interfering with a right of possession of a tenant.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found no violation had occurred. The statute provides that no unlawful intereference occurs if the owner believes in good faith that the tenant has abandonded the premises, and after didligent inquiry has reason to believe the tenant does not intend to return, and current rent is not paid. Because the belongings were removed, because plaintiff did not respond to multiple attempts to contact her, and because rent was unpaid, plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed.