Blog Viewer

You Have One New Message: Your Rent Is Late

By John B. Swift posted 09-14-2015 10:23

  

Effective August 19, 2015, MCL 600.5718 will allow landlords to electronically serve demands for possession (DFPs) (a/k/a notices to quit) on delinquent tenants. While this may seem like technology making our lives easier, I have a hard time seeing how this benefits tenants or saves landlords time.

Before the amendment, the statute required personal service or service by first-class mail. If a landlord wishes to use electronic service, the amendment requires the landlord to first get the tenant’s written consent. It also prohibits the landlord from refusing to enter into a lease just because the tenant decides not to give consent—a provision that seems hard to enforce in reality.

Having represented many landlords and tenants in a variety of eviction proceedings, and being a landlord myself, I can tell you that the issue of notice is by far the most contested. I can also attest that many nonprofessional landlords (and even a few property managers) use e-mail quite a bit to communicate with tenants. Electronic communication is often more efficient than mail communication and has become an integral part of modern society.

That said, when a landlord and tenant end up in front of a judge, I do not see how this change makes the judge’s job of sorting out the facts any easier. If anything, the change seems to create a whole new set of issues, such as out-of-date e-mail addresses, junk mail filters, loss of Internet access, etc. And when comparing these potential complications with the limited benefit of electronic service to the parties (or, practically speaking, just the landlord), it really doesn’t seem worth it.

I have long heard the arguments that tenants know when they haven’t paid their rent and that a DFP is really just a formality. But the issue is rarely that black and white. Situations involving multiple tenants, credits for repairs, and Section 8 subsidies can complicate rent balances even for sophisticated tenants. Taking this into account, adding another layer of factual complexity seems like a high price to pay for a landlord’s minimal added convenience. After all, a review of the legislative analysis doesn’t show many tenants advocating for this change. 

0 comments
301 views

Permalink