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

  1. 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.

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.

———

  1. 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.

———

  1. 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.

———

  1. 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.

———

  1. 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.

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – November 11, 2022

  1. Sixth Circuit Rules that Notice is Required to Terminate Contract for Successive Performances

Under Section 440.2309(2) of Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code, a contract that “provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration” may be terminated at any time (without cause). However, as a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision points out, reasonable notice of such termination must be provided, unless the requirement of notice is waived via the contract.

Why it Matters: The court’s ruling in the case of Stackpole International Engineered Products v. Angstrom Automotive Group is a reminder for buyers and sellers, especially in the manufacturing industry, who enter into contracts that provide for successive performances to work with experienced legal counsel in the drafting, review and enforcement of commercial contracts in order to avoid contractual disputes and litigation.

———

  1. Michigan Election Results: Governor’s Race, State House and Senate

In the hotly contested governor’s race, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer defeated Republican challenger Tudor Dixon and will continue to serve as Michigan’s Governor for the next 4 years. And, both the State House and Senate flipped to Democratic control.

Why it Matters: This is the first time since 1984 that the Governor’s Office, State House and Senate are all controlled by Democrats. As officials look towards new leadership in certain areas, Fraser Trebilcock’s election law team will continue to monitor and report on any significant changes happening in Lansing.

———

  1. Municipalities Vote on Marijuana

While adult-use recreational marijuana passed the ballot in 2018, each individual municipality has the control to allow adult-use recreational marijuana businesses to operate in their community. This election cycle saw numerous municipalities vote on this issue.

Why it Matters: According to data provided by the CRA prior to the November election, less than 10% of all municipalities in the state had opted in for adult-use recreational marijuana businesses. Following election results showing that more municipalities are allowing for adult-use recreational businesses to operate in their town, the issues that have plagued current license owners arise again for officials to handle.

———

  1. Passed – Prop 1: Term Limits and Financial Requirements

Following the November 8, 2022 election results, Prop 1, which proposed changes to term limits for state legislators and required elected officials to disclose financial information, passed.

Why it Matters: As we covered in an earlier newsletter, this development will permit lawmakers to serve 12 years in Lansing, and all of that time can be spent in the House or Senate, or it could be divided between the two chambers. Additionally, elected officials would have to disclose their assets, income and liabilities, and their involvement in any businesses, nonprofits, labor organizations or educational institutions.

———

  1. Controversial Landlord-Tenant Rules Proposed by State Court Administrative Office

The State Court Administrative Office unveiled proposed changes to Michigan Court Rule 4.201, that if enacted, would alter the way eviction cases are handled for both landlords and tenants. Some of the proposed amendments are the ability for tenants to get an automatic stay if they have applied for rental aid, and a requirement that tenants be served in person if a landlord wants an immediate default judgement.

Why it Matters: If enacted, these rules would allow commercial and residential tenants more time to pay their landlords if they fall behind on payments. However, some are against the new proposed rules as they believe it would increase the difficulty for landlords to evict non-paying tenants, and make the process of finding new tenants more difficult.


Related Practice Groups and Professionals
Labor, Employment & Civil Rights | Aaron Davis
Election Law | Garett Koger
Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Real Estate | Jared Roberts

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – October 28, 2022

  1. Governor Whitmer Signs Bipartisan Election Bills

Governor Whitmer recently signed a package of election law bills which impact how clerks process ballots, including those coming from members of the military overseas. Michigan Public Act 195 permits clerks to pre-process absentee ballots two days prior to Election Day, changes requirements for ballot drop boxes to increase security, and requires clerks to more frequently review and update qualified voter files to remove dead voters. Public Act 196 allows military members serving overseas to submit ballots electronically.

Why it Matters: Polling shows that voters are highly energized and polarized leading up to the midterm elections. These laws are meant to address certain voting-related issues, such as ballot box integrity, that have led to controversy in the past. If you have questions about these bills, or election law issues in general, please contact a member of our election law team.

———

  1. Department of Labor Issues New Proposed Rule on Independent Contractors 

The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if adopted, would change the standard for analyzing a worker’s classification as either an employee or independent contractor.

Why it Matters: Employee misclassification can result in severe financial consequences. Businesses and employers should remain diligent in analyzing their workers’ classifications. Learn more on the subject.

———

  1. Michigan Court of Claims Rules in Prevailing Wage Policy Case

Judge Douglas Shapiro of the Michigan Court of Claims recently ruled in favor of the state’s Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB), when it implemented its prevailing wage policy. The Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan (ABC) in July 2022 filed a preliminary injunction claiming that due to the 2018 repeal of Michigan’s prevailing wage law, that the state cannot require the wage rate, which the Court denied and agreed that DTMB did not violate separation of powers when implementing its prevailing wage policy.

Why it Matters: October 31 is the deadline for ABC to appeal the decision. If this decision stays, this signals changes to the way organizations do business with the state of Michigan. Learn more on DTMB’s prevailing wage.

———

  1. New CRA Director Vows to Crack Down on Black Market Sales

This week, Brian Hanna, the Cannabis Regulatory Agency’s acting director, spoke to media and highlighted the agency’s focus on cracking down on cannabis that is continuing to illegally enter Michigan’s market.

Why it Matters: Though official numbers have not been confirmed, it is known that illicit cannabis is continuing to enter Michigan’s medical and adult-use cannabis markets, causing widespread effects on prices and profits for legal and law-abiding businesses.

———

  1. State Court Administrative Office Proposes New Landlord-Tenant Rules

The State Court Administrative Office unveiled new proposed rules that if enacted, would alter the way eviction cases are handled for both landlords and tenants. Rules such as a requirement that tenants be served in person if a landlord wants an immediate default judgement, and the ability for tenants to get an automatic stay if they have applied for rental aid.

Why it Matters: If enacted, these rules would allow commercial and residential tenants more time to pay their landlords if they fall behind on payments, however landlords are against the new proposed rules as they believe it will make the process of finding new tenants more difficult.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Election Law | Garett Koger
Labor, Employment & Civil Rights | David Houston
Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Real Estate | Jared Roberts

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:

  1. 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.

  1. “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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. “[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.

  1. 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.

  1. As used in this order, all terms have the meaning provided by the Revised Judicature Act.
  1. This section rescinds Order 19 .
  2. This section provides that a willful violation of this Order is a misdemeanor.

This section requires little or no translation.

  1. 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.