Housing: landlord and tenants; cross-reference to the revised statutes of 1846; remove. Amends sec. 6 of 1978 PA 454 (MCL 554.636). TIE BAR WITH: SB 21'25, SB 19'25
SB 20 amends Michigan’s Truth in Renting Act to change the enforcement rules for unlawful rental agreement provisions. The bill revises section 6 of the act to specify what remedies a tenant may seek when a lease contains a prohibited clause, omits a required clause, or otherwise violates the act and the landlord does not cure the problem after written notice. It preserves tenant remedies such as voiding or terminating the lease, injunctive relief, and monetary damages, while also clarifying when a tenant may proceed without first giving notice to the landlord.
The bill also tightens procedural rules for these lawsuits. It sets different damage amounts depending on the type of violation, allows recovery of court costs and statutory attorney fees for the prevailing party, requires related actions over the same lease provision to be joined, and limits duplicate damage awards for the same provision. In addition, it creates a special rule for violations that arise only because a court later interprets a cited statute differently, giving landlords 30 days after a final court determination to cure before penalties apply. The bill also defines “tenant” for purposes of this section and states that it only takes effect if tied companion bills SB 19 and SB 21 are enacted.
The bill’s impact is primarily on landlord-tenant law and lease enforcement in Michigan. It would affect landlords, tenants, property managers, and attorneys by clarifying litigation procedures, notice requirements, and available remedies under the Truth in Renting Act. It also removes a cross-reference to the Revised Statutes of 1846, as reflected in the bill caption, and updates how certain statutory lease provisions are treated when challenged in court.
The general sentiment appears favorable, at least at the committee level, as the bill was reported favorably without amendment by an 8-3 vote. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not detailed in the transcript materials provided. The favorable vote suggests support for clarifying and standardizing enforcement of rental agreement rules, though the 3 nays indicate some disagreement with the approach.
The main points of contention likely involve how much leverage the bill gives tenants to challenge lease terms versus how much protection it affords landlords from repeated or technical claims. Provisions limiting multiple damage awards, requiring joinder of related actions, and creating a cure period after judicial reinterpretation may have been intended to address landlord concerns about litigation exposure, while the notice exceptions and enhanced remedies preserve tenant enforcement tools. The tie-bar to SB 19 and SB 21 also indicates the bill is part of a broader package, which may have been another point of legislative negotiation.
SB 20 would amend MCL 554.636 in the Truth in Renting Act to revise tenant remedies, landlord cure procedures, damage awards, joinder rules, and attorney-fee recovery for unlawful lease provisions. It would affect the enforcement of rental agreements statewide by clarifying when tenants can sue, what relief is available, and when landlords can avoid penalties by curing violations. The bill also removes a cross-reference to the Revised Statutes of 1846 and is tied to companion bills SB 19 and SB 21, meaning it would not take effect unless the full package is enacted.
The bill was reported favorably without amendment by an 8-3 committee vote, indicating overall support for the measure. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the majority viewed the bill as a useful clarification of landlord-tenant enforcement rules. The dissenting votes indicate some reservations, likely about the scope of tenant remedies or the procedural changes imposed on landlords.
Likely areas of disagreement include the bill’s expanded or clarified tenant remedies, the damage amounts available for violations, and the circumstances under which tenants may bypass the usual notice-and-cure process. Landlords and property owners may favor the bill’s limits on duplicate damage awards and its cure provisions, while tenant advocates may focus on preserving strong enforcement tools and exceptions for knowing violations. The tie-bar to SB 19 and SB 21 also suggests the bill is part of a negotiated package, which can create additional contention if any companion bill stalls.