Property: recording; recording requirements; modify. Amends sec. 1 of 1937 PA 103 (MCL 565.201).
Senate Bill 839 would amend Michigan’s recording law for documents filed with county registers of deeds. The bill restates and updates the list of formatting and content requirements an instrument must meet before it can be accepted for recording, including signature formatting, notary identification, grantee addresses, paper size and margins, type size, English translations for non-English documents, and the inclusion of the drafter’s name and business address. It also preserves the existing rule that social security numbers must be partially obscured, and it continues to require that post-1997 recordable instruments identify a single recordable event on the first line of the first page.
The bill’s practical effect is to keep Michigan’s recording standards organized in one section of the property recording statute and to clarify the conditions under which registers of deeds must accept or reject documents. It maintains the rule that registers of deeds may not reject an instrument for its content if it otherwise complies with recording law, and it continues special treatment for certain mortgages recorded by affidavit, including the rule that such a mortgage is deemed recorded and perfected as of the affidavit’s recording date. It also reinforces the general rule that instruments required or authorized to be recorded must be filed in the county where the affected property is located.
Overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, based on the bill’s technical and administrative nature and the absence of recorded opposition, committee debate, or roll-call votes in the provided materials. The bill reads as a housekeeping or clarifying measure rather than a major policy change, suggesting it is intended to standardize recording practice and reduce ambiguity for county recorders, title professionals, and filers.
The main points of potential contention would likely be administrative burden and compliance costs for those preparing deeds, mortgages, and other recordable instruments, especially where formatting, translation, or redaction requirements are involved. County registers of deeds and real estate practitioners would be the primary affected parties, while property owners, lenders, and title companies could also be impacted by any changes in acceptance standards or recording procedures. No specific opposition or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided transcript or vote history.
SB0839 would amend MCL 565.201, the statute governing what county registers of deeds may accept for recording, by restating and preserving detailed execution and formatting requirements for recordable instruments. It affects property conveyances, mortgages, affidavits, plats, and other documents filed in county recording offices, but does not appear to create a new substantive property right; instead, it regulates the form, filing location, and acceptance criteria for recorded instruments. The bill would continue to govern how documents are prepared, redacted, translated, and indexed for recording, with direct effects on county registers of deeds, real estate attorneys, lenders, title companies, and property owners.
The available materials suggest a largely neutral, technical, and administrative sentiment toward the bill. There are no committee transcripts, no recorded votes, and no stated opposition in the provided context, which indicates the measure was likely treated as a routine update to recording requirements rather than a controversial policy proposal. The bill’s language is consistent with a housekeeping amendment that clarifies existing practice and preserves current standards.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. If any concerns were to arise, they would likely center on the burden of compliance for filers and the administrative role of county registers of deeds in enforcing detailed formatting rules, including redaction of social security numbers, English translation requirements, and page-size or margin specifications. Real estate practitioners and recording offices would be the most likely stakeholders to raise implementation concerns, but no such objections are shown here.