Deed Theft Civil Action Proposed

Summary#

HB 6435 would amend Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act of 1961 by adding a civil cause of action for deed theft. Its stated goal is to let a person who is a victim of deed theft sue the person responsible in circuit court. The bill is introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect 90 days after enactment.

  • A person who is a victim of deed theft may sue the deed thief in circuit court.
  • The person may recover $5,000, three times their actual damages, and reasonable attorney fees.
  • The bill defines deed theft to include taking, transferring, or encumbering residential or commercial property title without the owner’s approval or knowledge, or through fraudulent or deceitful means. It lists examples such as forgery and falsely claiming to own or represent the owner.
  • This is a civil remedy, not a criminal penalty. The new section does not set out a process for correcting title or automatically transferring property back.

What it means for you#

  • Property owners: If you qualify as a victim of deed theft under the bill, you may bring a civil case against the person who committed it. The bill does not require a prior criminal conviction.
  • People accused of deed theft: If found liable in a case under this section, you may have to pay the listed damages and reasonable attorney fees.
  • Property owners and buyers generally: The bill does not itself change property-title procedures or require people to apply for review of a deed. How this new action would interact with existing legal remedies could not be verified from the supplied materials.

Money#

No public cost estimate is provided.

  • A successful claimant may recover $5,000, three times actual damages, and reasonable attorney fees from the deed thief.
  • The bill does not provide an estimate of court or other public costs. It does not set out a public appropriation or a new fee.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current Revised Judicature Act, so I could not verify what remedies or procedures already apply.
  • The bill does not define “victim,” “approval,” “knowledge,” “fraudulent or deceitful means,” or “actual damages.”
  • It does not set out filing deadlines, proof standards, or a process for deciding whether conduct meets the definition.
  • It does not explain how a successful case would affect the property’s title or how this action would work alongside other remedies.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that deed theft can cause serious financial harm, and the bill gives affected owners a specific civil action.
  • The $5,000 amount, treble damages, and attorney-fee recovery could make it more practical for a victim to pursue a case. These remedies may also discourage deed theft, though the bill does not guarantee that result.

Case against#

  • The definition covers several forms of conduct and uses terms the bill does not define. That could leave uncertainty about which disputes qualify.
  • Three times actual damages, plus $5,000 and attorney fees, could result in a substantial payment. The bill sets no cap.
  • The bill does not explain how a court action under this section would restore or correct title, or how it would fit with existing remedies.