Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Title topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears experts and advances HB 4524 to clarify Marketable Record Title Act protections
Summary
The committee heard expert testimony supporting HB 4524, a bill to clarify the Marketable Record Title Act so longstanding recorded restrictions and easements (back to Jan. 1, 1950) remain effective; stakeholders said the change avoids unintended lapse of easements and property restrictions created mid-20th century.
The House Judiciary Committee heard from Representative Juan Wozniak and outside stakeholders on House Bill 4524, a proposal to clarify how the Marketable Record Title Act operates for old restrictions and easements. David Pearson of the Real Property Law section of the State Bar of Michigan described how the 2018 amendments to the Marketable Record Title Act had created uncertainty for restrictions and easements recorded before the amendment, potentially undoing rights that property owners and associations relied on.
Pearson said HB 4524 would ‘‘effectively’’ make restrictions recorded up to 75 years ago (back to Jan. 1, 1950) exempt from unintended lapse, preserving restrictions for older subdivisions and for multiowner commercial property agreements such as shared parking or drainage easements. He said the draft is the product of a stakeholder committee and attempts to return the law to how many assumed it operated before 2018.
Emily (participating by Zoom) said stakeholders have repeatedly amended and extended the 2018 changes and that the current package represents broad accommodation; she urged the committee to avoid another short extension before the September deadline and said a final minor modification may arrive within days. Committee members asked for confirmation that the 40-year title rule remains for ownership; Pearson said the 40-year rule still governs ownership title, while the bill protects other recorded interests and provides a two-year grace period to preserve certain claims.
The chair indicated the committee will take the substitute at a future meeting and that proponents expect the bill to prevent further disruption when the current extension lapses in September.
