Michigan House Bill HB4626

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Property: other; community property act; revise gender-specific language. Amends secs. 3 & 4 of 1948 (1st Ex Sess) PA 39 (MCL 557.253 & 557.254). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25

Summary

HB4626 revises Michigan’s Community Property Act to modernize and neutralize the language in sections 3 and 4 of 1948 (1st Ex Sess) PA 39. The bill replaces repeated gendered references such as “husband” and “wife” with “spouses,” and updates related pronouns and phrasing throughout the provisions governing how property is treated as community property or separate property. It also clarifies the notice-of-claim process for preserving community-property status for certain property interests and for property derived from community property. Substantively, the bill preserves the existing framework under which property that was community property under the 1947 act remains subject to that act, while property not expressly designated as community property is generally treated as separate property unless a timely notice of claim is filed. The bill keeps the one-year filing window and the county register of deeds filing requirements, including duplicate filings for real property in other counties, and it maintains the rule that disability or lack of knowledge does not toll the filing deadline. The bill is tied to a proposed constitutional amendment, meaning it does not take effect unless the linked resolution becomes part of the state constitution.

Impact

HB4626 would amend MCL 557.253 and 557.254 to update statutory language without changing the underlying property rules in the Community Property Act. Its main legal effect is to replace gender-specific terminology with gender-neutral terms and to restate the existing notice and title rules in clearer language. The bill continues to govern how certain property is classified as community or separate property, how claims are preserved, and where notices must be filed, affecting spouses, heirs, devisees, legatees, distributees, and county registers of deeds. Because it is tie-barred to a constitutional amendment, the bill would have no effect unless that related amendment is adopted.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is largely technical and noncontroversial in purpose, focused on modernizing outdated statutory language rather than changing property rights. The caption describes it as revising gender-specific language, which indicates a cleanup measure intended to make the statute more inclusive and consistent. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of recorded opposition or support beyond the bill’s formal introduction and tie-bar structure.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is not the language update itself, but the bill’s tie-bar to a constitutional amendment. That means the statutory changes are contingent on the related resolution becoming part of the state constitution, which can make the bill procedurally dependent on a broader policy decision. Another possible area of concern is that the bill preserves the existing community-property notice regime, including strict filing deadlines and the rule that disability or lack of knowledge does not extend the deadline; however, the text does not show any active dispute over those provisions.