Michigan House Bill HB4606

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Property: other; act regarding termination of tenancy by the entireties; revise gender-specific language. Amends sec. 1 of 1927 PA 210 (MCL 557.101). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

House Bill 4606 amends Michigan’s 1927 law on termination of tenancies by the entirety, which is a form of property ownership typically used by married couples. The bill updates the statutory language from the older, gender-specific phrasing of “husband and wife” and “his or her” to the more inclusive term “spouses,” while keeping the underlying rule the same: one spouse may convey his or her interest in the property to the other spouse, thereby terminating the tenancy by the entirety. The bill is also tied to a proposed constitutional change. It contains a conditional effective-date clause stating that it will not take effect unless Senate Joint Resolution ____ or House Joint Resolution F becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. As a result, HB 4606 functions as a contingent statutory cleanup measure that would modernize the wording of the property law only if the related constitutional amendment is adopted.

Impact

If enacted and triggered by the companion constitutional resolution, HB 4606 would revise MCL 557.101 to use gender-neutral terminology in the law governing tenancies by the entirety. The practical legal effect appears limited: it does not change the substantive ability of one spouse to convey an interest to the other, but it would update the statute’s language to reflect current drafting standards and broader marital terminology. The bill would affect property owners holding real estate as tenants by the entirety, as well as attorneys, title professionals, and courts applying Michigan property law.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is largely technical and noncontroversial. Its caption describes it as revising gender-specific language, and there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history indicating opposition or debate. The absence of votes and transcripts suggests the measure was not the subject of visible public contention in the materials provided.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is not the property rule itself, but the bill’s dependency on a separate constitutional resolution. Because HB 4606 would only take effect if HJR F or the related Senate resolution becomes part of the constitution, any disagreement would likely center on the companion constitutional change rather than the statutory wording update. Another possible issue is whether the terminology change is purely stylistic or part of a broader policy effort to modernize marriage-related property statutes, though no direct opposition is shown in the provided record.