Bill
SB 111
Creates an elder and vulnerable adult personal protection order in Michigan to curb abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, including restraining actions and asset safeguards.
Status & Context
- Bill: SB 111 (Substitute S‑1 as passed by the Senate)
- Purpose: Add a new section (MCL 600.2950p) to the Revised Judicature Act (1961 PA 236) to create a specific personal protection order (PPO) remedy for elder and vulnerable adults.
- Sponsor / Origin: Introduced in the Michigan Senate (reported with substitute S‑1 by committee). As of committee materials, substitute S‑1 passed the Senate; referred initially to Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety.
- Rationale: Address financial exploitation, neglect, abuse and other harms targeting older adults and vulnerable adults; create a tailored court tool to prevent and remedy such conduct.
Who may seek relief
- Petitioner: an individual who is
- age 60 or older, or
- a “vulnerable adult” as defined in MCL 750.174a (broadly persons age 18+ who need supervision/personal care or are suspected of abuse/neglect/exploitation), or
- an individual with a “developmental disability” as defined under the Mental Health Code (MCL 330.1100a).
- How: By independent action, by joining an existing action, or by motion in a pending case where petitioner and respondent are parties.
Key substantive provisions / relief available
- Scope of injunctive relief: court may restrain or enjoin a respondent from acts including (non‑exhaustive):
- entering or refusing to leave premises;
- assaulting, threatening, or otherwise harming the petitioner;
- purchasing or possessing firearms;
- engaging in certain criminal conduct (MCL 750.411h/411i);
- abusing, injuring, removing, or retaining an animal owned by the petitioner;
- threatening, destroying, or withholding access to property, goods, services, or basic necessities; and
- exercising or asserting decision‑making authority over the petitioner (subject to limits where authority already granted by another court).
- Financial‑exploitation remedies (expressly authorized):
- prohibit respondent from accessing, transferring, or exercising control over petitioner’s funds, benefits, property or assets;
- require respondent to submit paperwork to remove themselves as a representative payee;
- after evidentiary hearing, require return of property;
- award actual damages (capped per MCL reference), and actual attorney fees (after hearing);
- require respondent to post a bond to protect disputed assets;
- permit temporary lis pendens on disputed real property (consistent with chapter 27).
- Standard for issuance: court must issue an elder/vulnerable adult PPO upon a finding of reasonable cause; the bill defines examples of acts that constitute reasonable cause.
- Procedural protections and mechanics:
- Ex parte issuance procedures and a required PPO form (with enforceability information, covered actions, penalties, modification instructions) are prescribed.
- Courts may not refuse to issue a PPO solely for absence of a police report, medical report, or visible physical abuse.
- If petitioner is a ward/protected person in an active guardianship/conservatorship, the issuing court must transfer the action to the probate court; records must be securely transferred promptly.
- If respondent currently serves as court‑appointed fiduciary, respondent must notify the guardianship/conservatorship court within 7 days of service.
- Duties for clerks and law enforcement service procedures are specified (filing true copies with law enforcement, etc.).
- If respondent is licensed and required to carry a concealed weapon for employment, employer notification is required before issuing the PPO.
Who/what is affected
- Primary: people age 60+, vulnerable adults, persons with developmental disabilities who are victims or at risk of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation.
- Secondary: respondents (including family members, caregivers, fiduciaries), probate/ circuit courts, law enforcement, guardians/conservators, employers of licensed concealed‑carry employees, probate clerks, attorneys.
- Systemic: may increase circuit/probate court hearings and related administrative duties.
Fiscal and practical impact
- Committee analyses note likely increased hearing costs for circuit and probate courts; the amount is unknown.
- Data cited: Michigan had large numbers of PPO filings in 2023 (over 34,000 across stalking/domestic PPO types); the elder population (60+) is about 24.7% of Michigan’s population—indicating potential substantial demand.
- Other bills in the package (SBs 112–114) address racketeering enhancements and multidisciplinary teams to combat exploitation; SB 111 focuses on the civil protective remedy.
Timing / Next steps
- At committee reporting, the substitute (S‑1) had been reported favorably by Senate committee and placed for further consideration; additional committee or chamber action (and concurrence by the House) would be required for enactment. Check the Legislature’s status portal for the latest procedural steps and amendments.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
