Michigan House Bill HB5289

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/13/25
• Refer: 11/13/25

Caption

Occupations: notaries public; remote notary services; allow. Amends sec. 26c & 26d of 2003 PA 238 (MCL 55.286c & 55.286d).

Summary

HB5289 amends Michigan’s law on notarial acts to authorize remote electronic notarization using 2-way real-time audiovisual technology. Under the bill, a notary public may perform a notarization without being in the same physical location as the signer, provided the parties can see and hear each other live, the act is recorded, identity is verified through credential analysis and identity proofing, and the signed record is transmitted to the notary the same day. The bill also allows required witnesses to participate remotely under the same audiovisual standard and permits records to be signed in counterparts during the covered period unless the document expressly prohibits it. The bill is framed as a temporary emergency measure, applying to notarial acts performed on or after April 30, 2020 and before July 1, 2021. It states that electronically notarized records under the section do not need to be notarized under any other provision of the act, and it protects the rights of good-faith third parties who rely on such records even if a technical defect later appears. It also creates a presumption of compliance that can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of intentional noncompliance.

Impact

HB5289 would temporarily modify Michigan’s notary statutes, particularly MCL 55.286c and 55.286d, by recognizing remote online notarization and remote witnessing as valid when performed through specified audiovisual technology. It would also encourage state agencies and officials to accept electronic records and signatures and to use electronically performing notaries when notarization is required. The bill affects notaries public, signers, witnesses, government offices, and parties relying on notarized documents, especially for records tied to Michigan courts, public entities, property, or transactions substantially connected to the state.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been presented as a practical response to the need for remote transaction capability, especially during the 2020 period covered by the bill. The statutory language suggests a generally supportive policy posture toward electronic records, remote notarization, and remote witnessing, with an emphasis on maintaining document validity and continuity of business and government operations. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of recorded opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and caption.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the relaxation of traditional in-person notarization and witnessing requirements, the use of remote audiovisual technology, and the sufficiency of identity verification and record-retention safeguards. Concerns could also arise over the bill’s temporary emergency timeframe, the treatment of signers physically outside Michigan, and the legal effect of records that may not fully comply but are relied on in good faith. The bill addresses these issues by requiring live interaction, recording, tamper-evident signatures, same-day transmission of the signed record, and a heightened standard for challenging compliance.