Michigan Senate Bill SB0373

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25
• Report Pass: 9/10/25
• Refer: 9/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/3/26

Caption

Housing: landlord and tenants; limitations on fees charged to tenants; provide for. Amends sec. 3 of 1978 PA 454 (MCL 554.633).

Summary

Senate Bill 373 would amend Michigan’s Truth in Renting Act to expand and clarify the list of lease terms that are prohibited in residential rental agreements. The bill bars provisions that waive or limit tenant remedies for habitability problems, security deposit rights, civil rights protections, jury trial rights, eviction and possession rights, and other statutory protections. It also prohibits clauses that impose confession of judgment terms, exculpate landlords from legal duties, require tenants to grant powers of attorney, or charge extra fees on every rent payment method if no fee-free option is offered. The bill further restricts landlords from unilaterally changing lease terms after the agreement begins unless the tenant consents in writing, with limited exceptions for legal changes, health and safety rules, and certain cost-based rent adjustments tied to taxes, utilities, or insurance. It also voids any lease clause that had already been prohibited by statute or declared unenforceable by a published court decision at least 90 days before the lease was signed. Any lease provision that violates these rules would be void under state law.

Impact

The bill would amend MCL 554.633, the section of Michigan’s Truth in Renting Act that identifies unenforceable lease provisions. Its practical effect is to strengthen consumer protections for residential tenants by making more landlord-favorable contract terms invalid and by limiting fee practices, unilateral lease modifications, and attempts to waive statutory rights. It would also reinforce existing protections under Michigan housing, civil rights, consumer protection, and eviction laws by incorporating them directly into the list of prohibited rental agreement terms.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively in committee, as it was reported favorably without amendment by a 7-2 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a tenant-protection and fee-limitation measure, which likely drew support from members favoring stronger renter rights and skepticism from members concerned about landlord flexibility and contract freedom.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s limits on landlord discretion and its restrictions on fees and lease modifications. Landlords and property owners may object to the prohibition on charging extra fees across all payment methods, the ban on unilateral lease changes, and the narrowing of clauses that shift costs or liability to tenants. Supporters, by contrast, would emphasize preventing hidden fees, preserving statutory tenant rights, and stopping lease terms that undermine habitability, due process, and anti-discrimination protections.