Michigan House Bill HB4615

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Veterans: other; certain references in the uniform veterans' guardianship act; make gender neutral. Amends sec. 13 of 1937 PA 321 (MCL 35.83). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

House Bill 4615 amends section 13 of Michigan’s Uniform Veterans’ Guardianship Act to modernize and make gender-neutral the language governing how a guardian may use a ward’s estate for maintenance and support. The bill replaces older references such as “his wife” with broader terms like “the ward’s spouse,” and similarly updates other wording to use gender-neutral and more current phrasing while preserving the underlying rule. Substantively, the bill keeps the existing restriction that a guardian may not use a ward’s estate to support anyone other than the ward, the ward’s minor children, and the ward’s spouse living with the ward, unless a court approves the expenditure after a hearing and proper notice to the Veterans Administration. The bill is tied to a proposed constitutional change, meaning it would not take effect unless the related joint resolution becomes part of the state constitution.

Impact

The bill would amend a provision of 1937 PA 321, the Uniform Veterans’ Guardianship Act, by updating statutory language in MCL 35.83 to be gender neutral and more inclusive. It does not appear to change the substantive legal standard for guardians’ use of a ward’s estate, but it would revise the wording of the statute to reflect modern terminology and current family references. Because of the tie-bar, the amendment would only become effective if the referenced joint resolution is adopted into the state constitution.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears largely noncontroversial and technical in nature. Its purpose is to update outdated gendered language rather than alter veterans’ guardianship policy, which typically makes such bills more broadly acceptable. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated drafting purpose and tie-bar arrangement.

Contention

The main point of contention, if any, is procedural rather than substantive: the bill is tie-barred to a constitutional amendment, so its effectiveness depends on the related joint resolution being approved. The only policy-related issue visible in the text is the continued requirement that court approval and notice to the Veterans Administration are needed before a guardian can use a ward’s estate for others’ support. No specific objections, amendments, or competing viewpoints are included in the available materials.