Michigan House Bill HB4613

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Property: personal; act allowing ownership of certain personal property as tenancy by the entireties; revise gender-specific language. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1927 PA 212 (MCL 557.151). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

House Bill 4613 amends a 1927 Michigan law governing how certain personal property is owned by spouses. The bill updates gender-specific language in the title and operative section of the statute, replacing references to “husband and wife” with “spouses” while preserving the underlying rule that certain jointly payable financial instruments—such as bonds, stock certificates, mortgages, promissory notes, debentures, and similar evidences of indebtedness—are held in joint tenancy unless the document says otherwise. The bill keeps the existing survivorship framework intact. Under the amended language, these assets would continue to be treated in the same manner as real estate held jointly by spouses, meaning that if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse would retain full ownership by right of survivorship. The bill is tied to a separate constitutional resolution and would not take effect unless that resolution becomes part of the Michigan Constitution.

Impact

If enacted and triggered by the related constitutional change, HB 4613 would revise MCL 557.151 to modernize statutory language and extend the joint-tenancy rule to spouses using gender-neutral terminology. The practical legal effect would be to preserve current property and survivorship rights for married couples while clarifying that the statute applies to spouses generally, not only to a husband and wife. It would affect ownership and transfer of certain personal property and debt instruments held in the names of spouses.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears technical and noncontroversial in nature, focused on updating terminology and aligning the statute with modern language while leaving substantive property rights unchanged. The tie-bar to a constitutional resolution suggests the bill is part of a broader package rather than a standalone policy dispute.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is not the ownership rule itself, which remains the same, but the bill’s dependency on a separate constitutional resolution before it can take effect. Any disagreement would likely center on the broader constitutional change referenced by the tie-bar rather than on the statutory cleanup in HB 4613. The bill also reflects a shift away from gender-specific marital terminology, which may be notable as a drafting and policy modernization issue, though no explicit opposition is documented in the materials provided.