Michigan House Bill HB4614

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Property: other; act validating conveyances made by attorney in fact; revise gender-specific language. Amends sec. 2 of 1861 PA 21 (MCL 565.602). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

HB 4614 amends a long-standing Michigan property statute that validates certain real-estate conveyances executed through a power of attorney. The bill updates the language of 1861 PA 21, section 2, to replace gender-specific references to a “married woman” and “husband and wife” with gender-neutral terms such as “individual,” “spouse,” and “spouses.” It continues to provide that a deed for land in Michigan, when jointly executed by spouses through their attorney in fact under a joint power of attorney, and properly acknowledged and recorded, is treated as valid and effective to convey title as though the spouses had signed and acknowledged it personally. The bill is tied to a proposed constitutional change and would not take effect unless Senate Joint Resolution ____ or House Joint Resolution F becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. In practical terms, the measure preserves existing property-transfer rules while modernizing the statutory wording to reflect current terminology and avoid outdated gendered phrasing. It affects real-estate transactions, title validity, attorneys in fact, spouses, and county registers of deeds who record these instruments.

Impact

HB 4614 would amend MCL 565.602, a property law provision governing the validity of deeds executed by spouses through a joint power of attorney. The substantive legal effect is to confirm that such deeds remain valid and effective to convey title when properly executed, acknowledged, and recorded, while revising the statute’s wording to be gender-neutral. Because the bill is tie-barred to a constitutional resolution, it would only take effect if the related constitutional amendment is adopted, limiting its immediate legal impact unless that condition is met.

Sentiment

The available context suggests a largely neutral or technical posture toward the bill. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, and the caption indicates the measure is primarily a housekeeping update to remove gender-specific language while preserving existing conveyancing rules. The bill appears aimed at modernization and clarification rather than a policy change, which typically draws limited controversy.

Contention

The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the bill’s tie-bar to a separate constitutional resolution, meaning its effectiveness depends on passage of another measure. Any substantive debate would likely center on the linked constitutional change rather than the deed-validation language itself. The statutory revision from gender-specific to gender-neutral terminology may also be noted by those focused on legal drafting or historical property-law language, but no explicit opposition or support is documented in the provided materials.