Attorney Fees in Michigan Lemon Law Cases

Michigan’s Lemon Law provides only discretionary attorney-fee shifting under MCL § 257.1407(2). MCPA’s reach has been narrowed by Smith v. Globe Life. As a result, Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) — the federal warranty statute’s mandatory fee provision — carries load-bearing weight as the primary attorney-fee engine in Michigan lemon-law practice.

This makes Michigan structurally different from peer states where the state consumer-protection act provides the fee hook.

Three statutes, three approaches to fees

Statute	Attorney fees	Where pursued
Michigan Lemon Law (§ 257.1407(2))	Discretionary (“may award”)	Michigan Circuit Court
MCPA (§ 445.911)	Available where MCPA applies	Limited reach post-Smith v. Globe Life
Magnuson-Moss (§ 2310(d)(2))	Federal; strongly presumed	Federal or state court

BBB Auto Line does not include attorney-fee recovery.

§ 257.1407(2) — the discretionary Michigan Lemon Law provision

MCL § 257.1407(2) provides:

The court may award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party.

Two structural weaknesses compared to peer-state Lemon Law provisions:

1. “May” rather than “shall” — discretionary, not mandatory like Ohio § 1345.75 or North Carolina § 20-351.8(3).
2. “Prevailing party” — bilateral. A manufacturer could theoretically recover fees against a losing consumer (rare in practice).

In Michigan lemon-law cases, § 257.1407(2) attorney-fee awards typically range when granted:

• Settlement cases (most): $15,000-$35,000.
• Tried cases: $35,000-$100,000+.

But the discretionary nature makes this a less reliable hook than Magnuson-Moss.

Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) — the load-bearing federal provision

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2) provides:

If a consumer finally prevails in any action brought under paragraph (1) of this subsection, he may be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended) determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the plaintiff for or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.

Federal courts — including the Sixth Circuit covering Michigan — read “may” here as creating a strong presumption in favor of fee shifting for prevailing consumers. The functional reality is that fees are awarded in nearly all prevailing Magnuson-Moss cases.

In Michigan lemon-law cases, Magnuson-Moss attorney-fee awards typically range:

• Settlement cases (most): $25,000-$60,000.
• Tried cases: $60,000-$150,000+.

These amounts are paid by the manufacturer in addition to the consumer’s damages.

How fee-shifting changes Michigan case dynamics

Without federal Magnuson-Moss fee-shifting, Michigan lemon-law cases would be economically marginal given:

• The Lemon Law’s tight 1-year reporting window.
• The Lemon Law’s discretionary fee provision.
• MCPA’s narrowed reach.

With Magnuson-Moss + (possible) § 257.1407(2):

• Refund: $25,000-$60,000.
• Magnuson-Moss attorney fees: $25,000-$60,000.
• Consumer net: substantial.

Contingency representation in Michigan

Most experienced Michigan lemon-law attorneys work on modified contingency:

• No fee upfront.
• Costs advanced by the attorney.
• Fees recovered from the manufacturer through Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) (primary) or § 257.1407(2) (secondary).

What about MCPA fees?

MCPA attorney fees under § 445.911 are theoretically available but only where MCPA applies — a contested issue for motor-vehicle warranty cases post-Smith v. Globe Life. Most Michigan lemon-law attorneys don’t plan their fee recovery around MCPA.

What about BBB Auto Line?

BBB Auto Line doesn’t include attorney-fee recovery.

This is why consumers with substantial defects who want fee recovery pursue court action — particularly federal court under Magnuson-Moss — after BBB Auto Line is complete.

The settlement breakdown

A typical settled Michigan lemon-law case might distribute:

• Refund value (including sales tax): 55-70%.
• MCPA damages: 0-10% (typically zero).
• Magnuson-Moss attorney fees: 25-40%.

Why federal-court filing matters in Michigan

Filing in E.D. or W.D. Michigan federal court under Magnuson-Moss is what reliably converts discretionary fee-shifting into mandatory-style fee-shifting. The Sixth Circuit treats § 2310(d)(2) as creating strong presumption of fees on prevailing — much more reliable than the state Lemon Law’s “may” provision.

Bottom line

Michigan’s lemon-law fee landscape is structurally weaker on paper than peer states’ (discretionary state fees + narrowed MCPA), but federal Magnuson-Moss fills the gap. Pleading Magnuson-Moss in federal court is the standard Michigan strategy for fee recovery — and what makes Michigan lemon-law practice economically viable.

Related

Article

Cash-and-Keep Settlements in Michigan Lemon Law Cases

How cash-and-keep settlements work in Michigan.

Read → Article

Refund Under Michigan Lemon Law

The most common Michigan Lemon Law remedy — full refund plus Michigan sales tax and collateral charges, minus a reasonable use deduction, with Magnuson-Moss federal attorney fees on top.

Read → Article

MCPA Damages in Michigan Lemon Law Cases (Limited Reach)

Michigan's Consumer Protection Act provides limited support for motor-vehicle lemon-law damages claims after the Michigan Supreme Court's narrowing in Smith v. Globe Life.

Read → Article

Replacement Vehicle Under Michigan Lemon Law

Michigan Lemon Law remedies include comparable replacement as an alternative to refund.

Read →