eviction | Fraser Blog

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – November 18, 2022

Proposed Modifications to Michigan Court Rules Seek to Make Pandemic-Inspired Changes Permanent, Making it Harder to Evict Tenants

Why it Matters: Pursuant to recently proposed amendments to Michigan Court Rule 4.201, Michigan’s State Court Administrative Office has taken steps to make many pandemic-era changes to minimize evictions permanent. Some of the proposed rules are allowing a judge to adjourn trial for at least seven days if a default judgment is not entered, and staying an eviction case if a tenant has applied for rent assistance. Learn more from our Fraser Trebilcock real estate attorneys on the matter.

———

Michigan Small Business Growth Remains Strong

According to a recent report from the small Business Association of Michigan, Michigan’s entrepreneurial economy continues to grow. Among other things, SBAM’s Entrepreneurship Score Card shows that Michigan small businesses have outperformed U.S. averages in terms of the percentages of businesses being opened and revenue.

Why it Matters: Small businesses have always been the backbone of economic growth in Michigan and across the country. This report highlights the resilience of Michigan entrepreneurial economy.

———

Business Planning for the Future

A lot of small-to-medium size businesses devote time and focus on their near-term future but may not think of what 5-10 years will bring. The value of a business can often be in the ability to transition it to a new owner, but some business owners are unsure how to set themselves up to be successful in this arena.

Why it Matters: Capitalizing on the ability to plan for the long-term will aid your business in any transitions that may occur. Learn more here.

———

CRA Issues Michigan Consumer Advisory

Earlier this week, CRA issued a bulletin giving notice to consumers that a marijuana business that operates as both a state-licensed medical and adult-use recreational, Green Culture, sold unregulated products that may have contained several contaminants, such as mold and/or bacteria.

Why it Matters: Following the investigation, the CRA suspended both of Green Culture’s licenses. Marijuana businesses should heed this as a warning, the CRA are cracking down on businesses that do not follow the strict guidelines and rules laid out by the state agency.

———

IRS Announces 2023 Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Retirement and Health and Welfare Benefit Plans

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced 2023 cost-of-living adjustments for retirement and health and welfare benefit plans. The significant adjustments reflect the increase in inflation over the last year. The adjustments are detailed in IRS Notice 2022-55. For example, the contribution limit for a Simple 401(k) will increase to $15,500 in 2023 from $14,000 in 2022, and for a Health FSA, limits will increase to $3,050 in 2023 from $2,850 in 2022.

Why it Matters: Business owners and employers should be aware of these adjustments and share this information with employees as we approach the new year. If you have any questions regarding these adjustments, please contact our Employee Benefits team.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Real Estate | Jared Roberts
Business & Tax | Mark Kellogg
Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Employee Benefits | Robert Burgee

Proposed Modifications to Michigan Court Rules Seek to Make Pandemic-Inspired Changes Permanent, Making it Harder to Evict Tenants

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan’s court rules related to landlord-tenant eviction procedures were modified in some ways to utilize video conferencing and to make certain proceedings more efficient, and modified in other ways that made it more difficult for landlords to evict residential and commercial tenants. Pursuant to recently proposed amendments to Michigan Court Rule 4.201, Michigan’s State Court Administrative Office has taken steps to make many pandemic-era changes to minimize evictions permanent.

The rule changes were subject to a shortened public comment period which ended on November 1, 2022. The Supreme Court will take them up at its November 16 public hearing.

Some of the highlights of the rule modifications include:

Giving courts discretion as to whether to enter an eviction order if a tent fails to appear at an eviction hearing (pre-pandemic such an order was mandatory).
Allowing a judge to adjourn trial for at least seven days if a default judgment is not entered.
Staying an eviction case if a tenant has applied for rent assistance.
Allowing tenants to request a jury trial with only 48 hours’ notice before a trial.
Permitting online pretrial hearings.
Requiring tenants to be served in person if a landlord is seeking an immediate default judgment.

Eviction is an issue that every Michigan landlord must grapple with at some point while running their business. Ever since COVID-19 began, it’s become harder for landlords to move forward with eviction. And now, given these proposed rule changes, it may not get any easier for the foreseeable future.

One of the best ways to avoid having to deal with the eviction process is to do due diligence on potential tenants to assess their ability to fulfill their obligations under a lease. Ensuring that a lease agreement is unambiguous and contains clear procedures for eviction (that are consistent with the law) is also critical.

To protect and enforce your rights as a landlord, please contact Fraser Trebilcock shareholder Jared Roberts.

Jared Roberts is a shareholder at Fraser Trebilcock who works in real estate litigation and transactions, among other areas of the law. Jared is Chair of the firm’s Real Estate department, and also “walks the walk” as a landlord and owner of residential rental properties and apartments in Downtown Lansing. He may be reached at jroberts@fraserlawfirm.com and (517) 482-0887.

CDC Enters a “Round 2” Modified Eviction Moratorium

Effective August 3, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued a second eviction moratorium that, by its terms, is effective August 3 through October 3, 2021. The text of the order can be found here.

Instead of a blanket eviction prohibition, as was in place with the CDC order that expired on August 1, this new order applies in areas with “substantial” or “high” rates of COVID-19 transmission. “Substantial” and “high” are defined within the order pursuant to a numerical formula, and the order states that it provides links to a CDC website that maintains county-by-county score cards that apply the formula. Popular media and commentators note that this qualifying rate requires 50 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people over a seven day period. They also note that, according to the CDC, about 80 percent of US counties are currently experiencing these rates. If a county falls below the required rate for 14 days the moratorium does not apply, but if the rate goes back up to this level, it does. This would likely result in eviction proceedings starting then being stayed, depending on conditions, and may initiate some races to the courthouse, as the saying goes.

The general prohibition provides that: one “with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory action, shall not evict any covered person from any residential property in any county or U.S. territory while the county or territory is experiencing substantial or high levels” of COVID-19 transmission.

To be a “covered person” a tenant must: declare, under penalty of perjury, to various circumstances. Those declarations, quoted in part and paraphrased in part, are that:

The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available governmental assistance for rent or housing;
The individual income qualifies (basically, the individual received a stimulus check);
The individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses;
The individual is using best efforts to make timely partial rent payments that are as close to the full rent payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other nondiscretionary expenses;
Eviction would likely render the individual homeless—or force the individual to move into and reside in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting because the individual has no other available housing options; and
The individual resides in a U.S. county experiencing substantial or high rates of transmission of COVID-19 (pursuant to the formula).

A standardized CDC form is supposed to be available through the CDC, pursuant to the new order, but at the time of publication, the link to that form was dead. It just led to a page stating that the moratorium had expired. This may change in the future, however. That link is here.

Other important aspects of the new order to consider include the fact that the new moratorium is in its infancy and there is no indication on how courts will treat various aspects of it. In particular, “[t]his Order does not preclude a landlord challenging the truthfulness of a tenant’s, lessee’s, or resident’s declaration in court, as permitted under state or local law.” However, “[a]s long as the information in a previously signed declaration submitted under a previous order remains truthful and accurate, covered persons do not need to submit a new declaration under this Order.”

Like the prior version, the new moratorium does not cancel the tenant debt. Tenants can still be evicted for other breaches of the lease and, the author would argue, when a lease expires. If a tenant has COVID they cannot be evicted, but they can be evicted if they engage in criminal activity, threaten others (but being sick with COVID-19 itself is not deemed a threat to others), damage property or pose an immediate risk of damaging property, or violate ordinances or building codes.

On June 29, 2021, in the case of Alabama Association of Realtors® v. US Department of Health and Human Services, four justices voted to hear an appeal of a stay order entered by a District Court that held that the initial moratorium exceeded the CDC’s authority. Justice Kavanaugh, who concurred with the 5-vote majority to allow the CDC moratorium to remain in place, wrote: “I agree with the District Court and the applicants [the Alabama Association Plaintiffs] that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.” But, he concurred with the majority, and allowed the moratorium to stay in place because it was about to expire on July 31, and that the overall equities of the situation dictated that the moratorium should remain in place, albeit temporarily. Justice Kavanaugh further wrote that: “[i]n my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”

Thus, many Supreme Court watchers and commentators believe that our Supreme Court will hold such a moratorium invalid if it ever confronts the merits of the issue. As several federal courts found the prior moratorium unlawful, but never struck it nationwide based on various principles, we may again be confronted with a situation where the moratorium will expire before courts strike it down.

If you are a Michigan landlord seeking to navigate this current climate please contact Jared Roberts at Fraser Trebilcock.

CDC Eviction Moratorium Declared Unconstitutional

On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a declaratory ruling holding that the current CDC eviction moratorium is unconstitutional. For details on the moratorium and applicable CDC order please see my prior article “The DHS – CDC September Surprise; The Order to Temporarily Halt Residential Evictions.”

The general terms of the CDC Moratorium originally appeared in the CARES Act in March of 2020. Upon expiration of the CARES Act moratorium at the end of July, 2020, and the pending expiration of state-imposed moratoria, the CDC September moratorium was issued. That September CDC moratorium was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2020. That December 31 date was extended through federal legislation to January 31, 2021. That January 31 date was again extended by the CDC, with support of the Biden Administration, under an extension that sought to keep the moratorium in place through March 31, 2021.

The Michigan Supreme Court, through administrative action, ruled that Michigan courts would honor the CDC moratorium on October 22, making it, effectively, the law of Michigan. See here.

However, Terkel et al., v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention et al., No. 6:20-cv-00564 (E.D. Tex., Feb 25, 2021; Hon. J. Campbell Barker) held that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause did not support or justify the CDC moratorium. The court did not address state power to enact or impose such moratoriums, and indeed, cited a long history of such state prohibitions going back to at least the great Depression. The court did not expressly order any federal agency not to enforce the CDC moratorium because attorneys arguing the matter for the Department of Justice indicated on the record that the government would honor the declaration.

The federal government has appealed this ruling according to the Justice Department’s website: Department of Justice Issues Statement Announcing Decision to Appeal Terkel v. CDC | OPA | Department of Justice. The Justice Department is taking the position that this ruling only applies to the specific parties in that case and that it does not strike the CDC Moratorium nationwide. This declaratory judgment is not strictly binding precedent in Michigan courts but may be cited, of course, as persuasive authority. It is uncertain whether the Michigan Supreme Court will do anything to update its October, 2020 administrative order as a result.

If you are a landlord in Michigan and seek further guidance on this matter please contact Jared Roberts at Fraser Trebilcock.

Navigating Executive Order No. 2020-54 (“Order 54”); The Eviction and Land Contract Forfeiture Moratorium

UPDATE: On Monday, April 20, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Executive Order 2020-54, extending the duration of relief in prior Order 2020-19 through May 15, 2020.

With Executive Order 2020-54, Governor Whitmer enacted a “temporary prohibition against entry to premises for the purpose of removing or excluding a tenant or mobile home owner from their home,” which can fairly be described as an “eviction moratorium.”

The text of Order 54 largely mirrors Order 19 analyzed below, save for minor changes to Section 3 thereof that seek to clarify that the traditional landlord’s “Notice to Quit” for non-payment of rent can no longer threaten to evict or re-take possession. As such, a customized demand for payment of rent will be likely for the duration of Order 54. This is also discussed below.

This is a brief summary and does not constitute legal advice. You can view our summary of Executive Order 2020-19 here. We encourage you to review Executive Order 2020-54 in its entirety, and contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney for any questions you may have.

On Friday, March 20, 2020, Governor Whitmer signed an executive order enacting a “temporary prohibition against entry to premises for the purpose of removing or excluding a tenant or mobile home owner from their home,” which can fairly be described as an “eviction moratorium.” It was intended to stay in place until the end of the night on Friday, April 17, 2020, which effectively left it in place until Monday, April 20. On Monday, April 20 it was rescinded, and the nearly identical Order 2020-54 (“Order 54”) took its place.

Order 54 prohibits landlords and land contract vendors from evicting tenants or vendees until after May 15, 2020. It also prohibits personal delivery of demands for payment of rent, prohibits the use of Notices to Quit and other forfeiture notices that threaten eviction or seek to take possession. It has provisions that apply to court officers as well. It is both detailed and summarized below.

Legal Basis: Like all the COVID-19 executive orders, Order 54 follows the March 10, 2020 Executive Order 2020-4 and cites to updated versions, which declared a state of emergency across Michigan. It cites Michigan’s Constitution (Const 1963, art 5, sec 1) (vesting executive power in the governor) for support, along with Michigan’s 1976 Emergency Management Act, codified at MCL 30.401-421, and its 1945-era Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, codified at MCL 10.31-33 (please see links below to these statutes). Order 19 states:

“[t]he current states of emergency and disaster would be exacerbated by the additional threats to the public health related to removing or excluding people from their residences during the COVID-19 pandemic. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, protect the public health, and provide essential protections to vulnerable Michiganders, it is reasonable and necessary to provide temporary relief from certain eviction-related requirements.”

In sum, the Governor has determined that the personal interactions necessitated by the eviction process, and the possibility of people being put out “on the street,” so to speak, presents avoidable risks. Thus, the landlords of Michigan and those who sold residential property on land contract are being called on to contribute resources to the public good. At the time of writing and publication of this article, this contribution is uncompensated. Without addressing or resolving those issues, this article simply identifies what is prohibited and places those prohibitions into the context of the ordinary procedures for evictions or summary land contract forfeitures.

Prohibited Acts: Order 54 prohibits or regulates the following, described as numbered under the Order itself. The terms of Order 54 are summarized here:

No person shall remove or exclude a residential tenant, people holding under that tenant (such as roommates, family members, and likely any other hangers-on), land contract vendees (buyers) or those holding under those vendees from the residential premises in question until after May 15, 2020. This does not apply if the “tenant, vendee, or person holding under them poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property. This order should be broadly construed to effectuate that purpose.”

In other terms, regardless of where one was at in an eviction or land contract forfeiture process, actual removal or execution on a Writ of Restitution or other eviction order is stayed, barring exception. The “severe risk” exception is discussed briefly in the “What This Means” section below.

“This order does not affect the inherent power of a judge to order equitable relief.”

It is uncertain at this time whether this section intends to create a judicial carve out that would allow the equitable relief of eviction in circumstances not contemplated under Order 54, or whether this is a statement intended to limit the scope of Order 54 and prevent it from being mis-applied in commercial or other contexts. The later seems more likely, but this section is open to some interpretation.

This section, translated, provides that tenants and vendees still have to pay, and will still owe money for the time they occupy the property in question. In addition, landlords and vendors may issue written demands for payment of rent,, but they may no longer mail notices to quit (and by extension, other forfeiture notices) that threaten eviction or re-possession as a remedy. These demands for rent cannot be personally delivered or served during the moratorium period – they must be mailed or e-served if allowed under the applicable lease.

It is highly unlikely that any judge will construe this section as prohibiting a landlord or vendor from knocking on a tenant’s door to conduct other business, to check on a tenant, or to provide assistance to a tenant. The landlord just cannot knock on a tenant’s door to deliver the “bad news” of a demand letter, and in no circumstances may a landlord deliver or send a notice to quit or other document threatening eviction. The damages to the landlord for non-payment of rent continue to accrue, however.

Further, no person may enter residential property to remove a tenant, vendee or anyone claiming under them, even if they have already obtained a Writ of Restitution or other eviction order. Like Section 1 above, there is an exception where the tenant, vendee, or person holding under them poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property.

This is largely a re-hash of Section 1: if no person can remove or evict under Section 1, it follows that no person may enter a rental unit or residential property subject to a land contract for those purposes.

There is a moratorium preventing any court officer, sheriff or deputy from serving process (i.e., new lawsuits) that seek eviction of forfeiture as a remedy.

This section governs law enforcement, as opposed to the landlords or land contract vendors. It does not, on its face, bar lawsuits that only seek money damages. Assuming your local district court will take the filing and issue process (which remains uncertain at this time), one may theoretically initiate a new contract-based suit for money damages and seek to amend to add an eviction remedy when the moratorium is lifted.

“[N]o person may deny a mobile home owner access to their mobile home, except when the mobile home owner’s tenancy has been terminated because the mobile home owner poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property.”

This section basically brings mobile home parks under the same prohibitions applicable to residential landlords and land contract vendors.

For 30 days after the restrictions in sections 1 through 6 expire, courts have latitude to adjourn proceedings, toll redemption periods, toll limitations periods, and extend deadlines.

This appears to be a “housekeeping” section granting court latitude with scheduling that likely already would be found to exist under Michigan’s rules of Court and revised Judicature Act.

As used in this order, all terms have the meaning provided by the Revised Judicature Act.

This section rescinds Order 19 .
This section provides that a willful violation of this Order is a misdemeanor.

This section requires little or no translation.

A copy of this order will be transmitted to the State Court Administrative Office.

This is a mechanical section that will mean little to landlords or land contract vendors.

What This Means: Landlords and those who sold residential property on land contract must either challenge the legality of Order 54, or wait out all evictions until it expires or is amended to allow evictions.

Order 54 excepts situations where a tenant is creating substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property. While Order 54 is silent as to what those situations are, the case-by-case determinations that a court might make in that regard will be governed and informed by existing statute and common law. Owing to the numerous pronouncements in Order 54 regarding the necessity for people to shelter in place, along with the “Stay At Home” Order issued March 23, 2020 (and its successor orders), it seems clear that having a tenant or vendee with COVID-19 will not likely be deemed an exception, unless that person is taking assaultive or offensive actions to spread it to others in the building. If you are confronted with that situation, nothing in Order 54 prevents a landlord from calling the police along with pursuing legal remedies.

Landlords may still mail and e-mail demands for payment, but (unlike Order 19 that was rescinded), landlords and land contract vendors may no longer deliver, mail, email or otherwise tender notices to quit, notices to terminate tenancies and related land contract forfeiture notices. This is the substantive change in Order 54 that may create problems for landlords and land contract vendors. Order 54 does not technically prohibit a contract-based lawsuit against a tenant or vendee for money damages, but your counsel may advise that, in these uncertain times, such a suit may be of limited utility, unless it is later amended to add the eviction remedy.

In the meantime, Michigan’s prohibitions against landlord self-help and retaliatory eviction remain in place. While it was never a good time for landlords to take certain matters into their own hands before the current state of emergency, now is an even worse time to do so. It is anticipated that courts would treat lockouts or landlord utility shutoffs or service denials harshly at this time. It is unknown whether courts would likewise be lenient with landlords regarding repair issues at this time, but there are good arguments to support a rule of reason in that regard.

In Conclusion: Every situation is different. This general discussion cannot be used as a substitute for legal advice, pursuant to an established attorney-client relationship. Thus, contact your legal counsel or the undersigned if you have questions. The attorneys at Fraser Trebilcock remain ready and able to serve.

We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

Jared Roberts is a shareholder at Fraser Trebilcock who works in real estate litigation and transactions, among other areas of the law. Jared also “walks the walk” as a landlord and owner of residential rental properties and apartments in Downtown Lansing. He may be reached at jroberts@fraserlawfirm.com and (517) 482-0887.

Navigating Executive Order No. 2020-19 (“Order 19”); The Eviction and Land Contract Forfeiture Moratorium

UPDATE: On Monday, April 20, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Executive Order 2020-54, extending the duration of relief in prior Order 2020-19 through May 15, 2020.

This is a brief summary and does not constitute legal advice. We encourage you to review our new blog which analyzes Executive Order 2020-54, by following the link here.

On Friday, March 20, 2020, Governor Whitmer signed an executive order enacting a “temporary prohibition against entry to premises for the purpose of removing or excluding a tenant or mobile home owner from their home,” which can fairly be described as an “eviction moratorium.” It is in place until the end of the night on Friday, April 17, 2020, which effectively means that it is in place until Monday, April 20, unless it is amended, extended or repealed.

It prohibits landlords and land contract vendors from evicting tenants or vendees for about one month; nominally until midnight on Friday April 17, 2020, but practically until the following Monday, April 20. It also prohibits personal delivery of Notices to Quit and other forfeiture notices, but does not prevent them entirely. It has provisions that apply to court officers as well. It is both detailed and summarized below.

Legal Basis: Like all the COVID-19 executive orders, Order 19 follows the March 10, 2020 Executive Order 2020-4, which declared a state of emergency across Michigan. It cites Michigan’s Constitution (Const 1963, art 5, sec 1) (vesting executive power in the governor) for support, along with Michigan’s 1976 Emergency Management Act, codified at MCL 30.401-421, and its 1945-era Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, codified at MCL 10.31-33 (please see links below to these statutes). Order 19 states:

“[t]he current state of emergency would be exacerbated by the additional threats to the public health related to removing or excluding people from their residences during the COVID-19 pandemic. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, protect the public health, and provide essential protections to vulnerable Michiganders, it is reasonable and necessary to provide temporary relief from certain eviction-related requirements.”

In sum, the Governor has determined that the personal interactions necessitated by the eviction process, and the possibility of people being put out “on the street”, so to speak, presents avoidable risks. Thus, the landlords of Michigan and those who sold residential property on land contract are being called on to contribute resources to the public good. At the time of writing and publication of this article, this contribution is uncompensated. Without addressing or resolving those issues, this article simply identifies what is prohibited and places those prohibitions into the context of the ordinary procedures for evictions or summary land contract forfeitures.

Prohibited Acts: Order 19 prohibits or regulates the following, described as numbered under the Order itself. The terms of Order 19 are summarized here:

No person shall remove or exclude a residential tenant, people holding under that tenant (such as roommates, family members, and likely any other hangers-on), land contract vendees (buyers) or those holding under those vendees from the residential premises in question until 11:59 pm on April 17. This does not apply if the “tenant, vendee, or person holding under them poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property. This order should be broadly construed to effectuate that purpose.”

“This order does not affect the inherent power of a judge to order equitable relief.”

It is uncertain at this time whether this section intends to create a judicial carve out that would allow the equitable relief of eviction in circumstances not contemplated under Order 19, or whether this is a statement intended to limit the scope of Order 19 and prevent it from being mis-applied in commercial or other contexts. The later seems more likely, but this section is open to some interpretation.

This section, translated, provides that tenants and vendees still have to pay, and will still owe money for the time they occupy the property in question. In addition, landlords and vendors still have to issue notices to quit (and by extension, other forfeiture notices) consistent with MCL 600.5716 and MCL 600.5718. However, such notices cannot be personally delivered during the moratorium period – they must be mailed or e-served if allowed under the applicable lease.

It is highly unlikely that any judge will construe this section to prohibit a landlord or vendor from knocking on a tenant’s door to conduct other business, to check on a tenant, or to provide assistance to a tenant. The landlord just cannot knock on a tenant’s door to deliver the “bad news” of a notice to quit. The damages to the landlord continue to accrue, however.

Further, no person may enter residential property to remove a tenant, vendee or anyone claiming under them, even if they have already obtained a Writ of Restitution or other eviction order. Like Section 1 above, there is an exception where the tenant, vendee, or person holding under them poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property.

There is a moratorium preventing any court officer, sheriff or deputy from serving process (i.e., new lawsuits) that seek eviction of forfeiture as a remedy.

This section governs law enforcement, as opposed to the landlords or land contract vendors. It does not, on its face, bar lawsuits only seeking money damages. Assuming your local district court will take the filing and issue process (which remains uncertain at this time), one may theoretically initial a new contract-based suit for money damages and seek to amend to add an eviction remedy when the moratorium is lifted.

“[N]o person may deny a mobile home owner access to their mobile home, except when the mobile home owner’s tenancy has been terminated because the mobile home owner poses a substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property.”

This section basically brings mobile home parks under the same prohibitions applicable to residential landlords and land contract vendors.

For 30 days after the restrictions in sections 1 through 6 expire, courts have latitude to adjourn proceedings, toll redemption periods, toll limitations periods, and extend deadlines.

This appears to be a “housekeeping” section granting court latitude with scheduling that likely already would be found to exist under Michigan’s rules of Court and revised Judicature Act.

As used in this order, all terms have the meaning provided by the Revised Judicature Act.

This unifies Order 19 with existing statutes that the Courts and your attorney will already be familiar with.

A willful violation of this order is a misdemeanor.

This section requires little or no translation.

A copy of this order will be transmitted to the State Court Administrative Office.

This is a mechanical section that will mean little to landlords or land contract vendors.

What This Means: Landlords and those who sold residential property on land contract must either challenge the legality of Order 19, or wait out all evictions until it expires or is amended to allow evictions.

Order 19 excepts situations where a tenant is creating substantial risk to another person or an imminent and severe risk to property. While Order 19 is silent as to what those situations are, the case-by-case determinations that a court might make in that regard will be governed and informed by existing statute and common law. Owing to the numerous pronouncements in Order 19 regarding the necessity for people to shelter in place, along with the “Stay At Home” Order issued March 23, 2020, it seems clear that having a tenant or vendee with COVID-19 will not likely be deemed an exception, unless that person is taking assaultive or offensive actions to spread it to others in the building. If you are confronted with that situation, nothing in Order 19 prevents a landlord from calling the police along with pursuing legal remedies.

Landlords may still mail and e-mail notices to quit, notices to terminate tenancies and related land contract forfeiture notices, but they cannot be personally delivered. There is a chance that the 30 day notice to terminate tenancy may be timely enforced, but (barring a court order striking or modifying Order 19), enforcement of a notice to quit for non-payment will be delayed. Order 19 does not technically prohibit a contract-based lawsuit against a tenant or vendee for money damages, but your counsel may advise that, in these uncertain times, such a suit may be of limited utility, unless it is later amended to add the eviction remedy.

Michigan Constitution of 1963:

Emergency Management Act:

Emergency Powers of Governor Act: