Housing: landlord and tenants; reuse of certain tenant screening reports; allow. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.
Senate Bill 372 would amend Michigan’s landlord-tenant law to add new rules governing rental applications and tenant screening. The bill allows prospective tenants to submit a reusable screening report, and if a landlord accepts that report, the landlord may not charge a rental application fee. If a landlord declines to accept a reusable screening report, the bill caps the combined application and consumer-report fee at $25, but only if the landlord provides specified written disclosures first.
The bill also requires landlords, before taking an application or fee, to disclose in writing what information will be used, what criteria may lead to denial, whether a consumer report or reusable screening report will be required, whether units are available, whether reusable reports will be accepted, and, if applicable, the number of available units or the status of a waiting list. It further prohibits landlords from using a prospective tenant’s credit score or a prior tenancy-related court case with no finding of liability against the tenant as deciding factors in lease eligibility. If a landlord takes adverse action, the bill requires written notice, a free copy of the report relied on, and an opportunity for the applicant to meet and rebut the information before a final decision is made.
SB 372 would amend 1972 PA 348, the Michigan Truth in Renting Act, by expanding the statute’s title and adding new sections regulating interactions between landlords and prospective tenants. It would create new disclosure obligations, fee limits, report-reuse rules, and screening procedures, while also establishing a private right of action for violations with actual damages up to $1,000, attorney fees, and costs. The bill would affect landlords, property managers, tenant-screening services, and prospective renters, especially those relying on reusable screening reports, housing vouchers, or other nontraditional income sources.
The committee vote suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as it was reported favorably without amendment by a 7-2 vote. The bill’s structure indicates a policy preference for greater transparency and reduced screening costs for renters, while still preserving landlord discretion to evaluate applicants. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support at the committee level but does not include detailed debate or floor-level sentiment.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s limits on landlord screening practices and fees. Landlords may object to the ban on using credit scores, the restriction on considering certain prior tenancy-related court actions, the required disclosures, and the obligation to allow applicants to rebut adverse information. Tenant advocates are likely to support these provisions as protections against opaque or duplicative screening and excessive application costs. Another potential area of dispute is the $25 cap on application/report fees when reusable screening reports are not accepted, which could be viewed as either consumer protection or an interference with landlord cost recovery.