WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6194

Financial institutions: mortgage brokers and lenders; consolidation of certain licensing statutes related to residential mortgages; make conforming changes in the deferred presentment service transaction act. Amends sec. 2 of 2005 PA 244 (MCL 487.2122). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6177'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 3 co-sponsors

HB 6194 updates and clarifies the Deferred Presentment Service Transact., including definitions, closing/closure rules, and licensing admin, but only takes effect if HB 6177 passes

bill electronically reproduced 07/03/2026
#financialinstitutions:mortgagebrokersandlenders
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6194

Bill Summary – HB 6194 (2025-2026) – Michigan

Main purpose and intent

  • HB 6194 proposes amendments to the Deferred Presentment Service Transactions Act (2005 PA 244), as amended by 2016 PA 140.
  • The bill is designed to modernize and align licensing provisions for financial services, specifically involving deferred presentment service transactions, with broader licensing reforms under consolidation efforts tied to other mortgage-related statutes.
  • The act includes a tie-bar: the bill does not take effect unless HB 6177 (a companion measure) is enacted.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions (Section 2(1)): The bill clarifies and reiterates core terms used in the deferred presentment framework, including:
    • Applicant, Check, Closed, Commissioner, Customer, Database Provider, Department, Director, Drawee, Drawer, Licensee, Maturity Date, Redeem, and other related terms.
    • It specifies what constitutes a “deferred presentment service transaction” (DPS) and the responsibilities of licensees.
  • DPS structure and requirements (Section 2(1)(g)):
    • A DPS transaction involves a licensee paying the customer an agreed amount in exchange for a fee and holding the customer’s check for a defined period before negotiation, redemption, or presentment.
  • Multiple modes for “closing” a DPS transaction (Section 2(1)(c)):
    • The act lists several mechanisms by which a DPS can be considered closed, including cash/debit card payment, exchange for cashier’s check, deposit with evidence of satisfaction of obligation, or collection via civil remedies, repayment plans, or credit counseling.
  • Exceptions and cross-references (Section 2(2)):
    • The bill confirms DPS transactions do not apply to certain loan repayment delays when facilitated by licensees registered under other acts (e.g., consumer financial services act, regulatory loan act, and related mortgage and motor vehicle finance acts) for a defined period around the effective date of the residential mortgage licensing regimes.
    • It specifically mentions temporary exemptions of up to 6 months after the effective date for activity under the residential mortgage licensing and supervision act, the secondary mortgage loan act, and the mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers licensing act, as applicable.
  • Administration and enforcement:
    • The act continues to designate the Department as the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (Dept/OFIS) and uses the director (or authorized representative) for implementation and oversight.
    • The “Database Provider” may be a third-party chosen by the director or, if none is chosen, the director himself.
  • Effective date condition:
    • The amendments do not take effect unless HB 6177 (the companion bill) is enacted into law, creating a dependency tie-bar between the two measures.

Who would be affected

  • Licensees currently engaging in or applying to provide deferred presentment service transactions (DPS providers) would be directly affected by definitional and operational updates.
  • Applicants for DPS licenses would be governed by clarified standards and procedures under the updated act.
  • Consumers/customers engaging in DPS transactions would be subject to the revised framework for how DPS transactions are closed and disclosures around DPS terms.
  • Financial services regulators and the Department (OFIS) would oversee enforcement, licensing, and administration of the DPS program, including potential use of a statewide database provider.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The bill was introduced July 3, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Finance.
  • It includes a tie-bar requiring enactment of HB 6177 (a related mortgage licensing reform) for the act to take effect.
  • If HB 6177 does not pass, HB 6194 would not become effective, delaying any changes to the Deferred Presentment Service Transactions Act.

Notable details

  • The bill preserves existing DPS concepts (e.g., checks held for a period, fees paid to customers) while tightening or clarifying definitions and closure conditions.
  • It maintains flexibility for the department to select or designate a statewide database provider to support licensing and enforcement.

If you’d like, I can add a side-by-side comparison with current law to highlight all substantive changes or provide a plain-language FAQ for consumers and licensees.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.