Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landlord Tenant Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to restore magistrates’ role in initial landlord‑tenant ‘advice of rights’ hearings
Summary
Representative Aragona testified that the bill would restore magistrates’ authority to hold initial landlord‑tenant hearings (advice of rights) after a temporary COVID-era ruling lapsed; Michigan District Judges Association Judge A.T. Frank supported the change as a docket‑clearing measure.
The House Rules Committee heard testimony on a bill intended to restore magistrates’ authority to conduct the initial “advice of rights” hearing in landlord‑tenant matters, a role that lapsed after a temporary COVID‑era ruling ended.
Representative Aragona testified the bill “simply helps to make some clarifications. Right now, there is a 2 hearing system for any type of landlord tenant issues, that might happen in any of our districts.” He told the committee that during the COVID crisis “there was a ruling from scale, I believe, that allowed, magistrates to take the first hearing in a landlord tenant issue” and that after those orders expired the responsibility reverted to district court judges, “which tends to clog up their docket especially with this very simple type of hearing.” He said, “So what this bill will do is restore that ability to the magistrates.”
Judge A.T. Frank, testifying for the Michigan District Judges Association, told the committee the magistrate‑first process “helps streamline the process or makes it quicker anyways to have cases reach resolution.” He said magistrates were able to advise tenants and landlords, spend more time with parties and help cases move to resolution more quickly, and that in his courthouse the practice “worked out great.”
The transcript records additional written testimony cards from Trevor Van Dyke, identified as from Scale, and Nathan Triplett of the State Bar of Michigan; both were listed as not wishing to speak. Committee members asked clarifying questions about the duration and scope of the prior authority and whether the bill codifies an existing practice; Representative Aragona said the earlier ruling’s timeline had expired and the bill seeks to restore the prior streamlined process.
The committee did not record a formal vote on the bill in the provided excerpt. No draft statutory text, effective dates, or specific operational changes (for example, training or supervisory rules for magistrates) are in the transcript excerpt provided.
