SB 374 would add a new section to Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act governing court records in eviction and other summary proceeding cases under chapters 57 and 57a. The bill requires courts to automatically seal summary proceeding records at the start of the case until a judgment for possession is entered, and it authorizes sealing after judgment in a range of circumstances, including certain foreclosure- and land-contract-related cases, cases resolved with emergency rental assistance, cases filed during the COVID-19 state of emergency, cases where the parties agree to sealing, cases where the tenant complied with the judgment, and low-dollar nonpayment cases under $900.
The bill also requires automatic expungement of these records three years after a final judgment for possession. It creates a process for courts to release sealed records for scholarly, educational, journalistic, or governmental purposes under confidentiality safeguards, while preserving access for the parties, their attorneys, and prospective counsel. In addition, it creates a civil cause of action if a housing provider knowingly relies on a sealed record to take an adverse action against a prospective tenant, with available remedies including damages, attorney fees, costs, and equitable relief.
The bill would significantly affect Michigan court record handling in eviction-related cases by expanding sealing and expungement protections and limiting public access to sensitive housing records. It would also impose new obligations on courts to manage sealed files, on researchers seeking access to confidential data, and on housing providers who use eviction records in tenant screening. The measure specifically amends the Revised Judicature Act and would apply to records in summary proceedings under the eviction statutes.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing 7-2 on a report without amendment. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no direct record here of detailed debate, but the vote indicates some support for the bill’s tenant-protection and record-sealing approach. The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, though not unanimous, reflecting likely concern from some members about limiting public access to court records or the practical effects on landlords and tenant screening.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of automatic sealing, the mandatory expungement timeline, and the restriction on housing providers using sealed eviction records. Supporters would likely view the bill as a housing-stability and privacy measure that reduces long-term harm from eviction filings, while critics may argue it reduces transparency, complicates landlord screening, and could make it harder to assess rental risk. The bill also draws a distinction between emergency rental assistance and Section 8 programs, which may be relevant to how broadly the sealing provisions apply.
SB 374 would amend Michigan’s court procedure laws by adding a new section to the Revised Judicature Act that governs sealing, access, and expungement of records in eviction and related summary proceedings. It would create automatic sealing at the outset of cases, permit post-judgment sealing in specified circumstances, require automatic expungement after three years, and establish a private right of action against housing providers who knowingly rely on sealed records. The bill would therefore change both court record management and landlord-tenant screening practices in Michigan.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as reflected by the 7-2 committee vote to report it favorably without amendment. Although no transcript is available, the vote suggests majority support for expanding tenant privacy protections and limiting the collateral consequences of eviction filings. The dissenting votes indicate there is still some concern about the scope of sealing and the impact on access to court information and housing-provider decision-making.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s broad sealing mandate, the automatic expungement provision, and the new liability for housing providers who use sealed records. Supporters are likely focused on tenant privacy, fairness in housing access, and reducing the long-term effects of eviction records, especially in low-dollar or emergency-related cases. Opponents are likely concerned about transparency in the court system, the burden on landlords and property managers, and whether restricting access to eviction history could make tenant screening less reliable.