Committee hears bill to let magistrates deliver landlord-tenant advice-of-rights; supporters cite docket relief, opponents warn of scope

House Bill 4021, introduced in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30, would permit district court magistrates to conduct the initial advice-of-rights hearing in landlord-tenant disputes, a procedural step that precedes any final judgment.

Supporters, including Representative Matt Aragona and local district judges who brought the issue to his attention, said the change merely codifies a COVID-era practice that allowed magistrates to handle that initial, largely informational hearing and would reduce district judges’ dockets. “This is an advice of rights — you are explaining the rights of the tenant, you’re explaining the rights of the landlord,” Representative Matt Aragona told the committee. He said judges in his area support the change and magistrates welcome the additional responsibility.

The bill’s backers said magistrates are trained lawyers who can efficiently handle the preliminary hearing and free judges to hear contested trials. Representative Aragona said he has not encountered reported problems from the COVID-era practice and that many magistrates and district judges view the change as an administrative improvement.

Opponents urged narrowing language and flagged legal limits. Bruce Timmons, testifying in opposition, asked the committee to delete or tighten a provision he said could permit magistrates to issue final, appealable orders. Timmons said historical practice and statutory structure (he referenced the mid-1970s enactment of the landlord-tenant framework) limit nonjudge officers to recommendations or limited, nonfinal action. “None of [referees or magistrates] can issue final orders that are appealable,” Timmons said, adding that Article VI of the Michigan Constitution contemplates judicial decisions by elected judges.

Representative Breen urged an amendment to ensure magistrates are restricted to the pretrial, advice-of-rights role rather than full trials, and proposed adding a posting requirement and expanded legal-aid resources so tenants better understand their rights. Aragona said he would work with stakeholders, including the sources of the bill language, on narrowing options and on a posting requirement; he noted that Michigan’s court system already provides notice-of-rights forms when complaints are filed.

Committee clerks read into the record written positions: supporters included Sean Cecil (Michigan Realtors), Judge Karen Volvo (Michigan District Court Judges), and Nathan Triplett (State Bar of Michigan); opponents listed Michigan Poverty Law Program and the Michigan Coalition Against Homeless (both indicated as not wishing to speak), and Bruce Timmons appeared to speak in opposition.

No committee vote was taken on HB 4021 during the hearing; members heard testimony and questions and asked the sponsor to consider language edits and possible tenant-notice provisions.

The committee moved to the next agenda item after the public testimony concluded.