Michigan House Bill HB4813

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/15/23
• Refer: 6/15/23

Caption

Property: other; act validating conveyances made by attorney in fact; revise gender-specific language. Amends sec. 2 of 1861 PA 21 (MCL 565.602). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'23

Impact

The passage of HB4813 would modernize the relevant statutes governing real estate transactions, making them more relevant to contemporary norms around gender equality and joint ownership. By enabling married individuals, particularly women, to convey property through an attorney in fact without requiring the in-person acknowledgment of their spouse, the bill not only streamlines the process but also recognizes the evolving roles within marital financial arrangements. This change could lead to more equitable treatment of joint property ownership and simplify legal proceedings regarding property conveyances.

Summary

House Bill 4813 seeks to amend existing legislation from 1861 concerning the confirmations of deeds and instruments intended for the conveyance of real estate in Michigan. This bill focuses specifically on the language used in the conveyance process, transitioning from gender-specific terms to more inclusive terms. It aims to validate deeds made by married women in conjunction with their spouses through an attorney in fact. The intent of this bill is to clarify and simplify the legal language involved in property transactions, ensuring that conveyances executed under joint powers of attorney are recognized as valid as if both spouses executed them in person.

Contention

While the bill reflects a progressive shift towards gender-neutral language in legal frameworks, it may encounter resistance from traditionalists who favor maintaining established processes. Notably, the bill includes an enacting clause that stipulates it will take effect only if certain joint resolutions are accomplished, emphasizing the bill's dependence on broader legislative actions. Therefore, the discussion surrounding HB4813 could involve debates over the necessity of such amendments and the potential implications for existing real estate practices, particularly among those unfamiliar with modern property ownership dynamics.