WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5900

Property: condemnation; attorney fees; modify. Amends sec. 6 of 1980 PA 87 (MCL 213.56). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5901'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Ken Borton and 5 co-sponsors

The bill creates a formal motion to review condemnation necessity with tight 30-day hearings and a 60-day court ruling, binding or prima facie proof rules, and limited appeals.

bill electronically reproduced 04/28/2026
#property:condemnation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5900

Summary: HB 5900 (Michigan, 2025-2026) – Property: Condemnation; Attorney Fees; Modify

Overview

HB 5900, introduced April 28, 2026, seeks to amend the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (1980 PA 87, as amended) by modifying provisions related to judicial review of the necessity for taking private property, the standards of proof, appeals, and related timelines. The bill focuses on procedural reform in eminent domain cases to potentially alter how public/private entities establish necessity and how affected property owners may challenge it.

Purpose and Intent

  • To provide a defined process for owners to challenge the necessity of all or part of their property for condemnation, with a structured timeline for hearings.
  • To clarify the standard of proof the condemning agency must meet (preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence in certain blight-related takings).
  • To set binding effects of agency determinations in some contexts while preserving a path for review in court.
  • To establish a definitive time frame for court decisions and limit post-judgment appealability to specific procedural routes.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Review of Necessity via Motion (Section 6(1))

    • Upon timely responsive pleading after a condemnation complaint, an owner may file a motion asking the court to review the necessity of the taking.
    • A hearing on the motion must occur within 30 days after the filing.

  • Binding Nature of Agency Determinations (Section 6(2)–(3))

    • For acquisitions by a public agency: the agency’s determination of public necessity is binding on the court unless there is fraud, legal error, or abuse of discretion.
    • For acquisitions by a private agency: the court must determine public necessity at the hearing, with specified presumptive evidence:
    • A granted permanent/temporary certificate by a public service commission or a federal agency authorized by law to determine public convenience and necessity creates a prima facie case that the project is needed.
    • Specifically, the Electric Transmission Line Certification Act certificate (Public Acts 1995, Act No. 30) is binding on the court.

  • Burden of Proof (Section 6(3)–(4))

    • Generally, the agency must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the taking is for a public use.
    • If the taking involves eradication of blight, the burden shifts to the agency to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking serves a public use.

  • Timelines for Court Decision (Section 6(3)–(4))

    • The court must render a decision within 60 days after the hearing is first scheduled.

  • Nature of Determination (Section 6(4)–(5))

    • The court’s determination regarding the motion to review necessity constitutes a final judgment.
    • An order upholding public necessity or the validity of the condemnation proceeding is subject to appeal to the Court of Appeals only with leave of the court, under general court rules. Absent a timely appeal, review is not granted as part of an appeal from a judgment on just compensation.

  • Preservation and Waiver (Section 6(6)–(7))

    • If a motion to review necessity is not filed as provided, the existence of necessity is conclusively presumed, and the right to review or further consideration is waived.

  • Effective Date (Enacting Section 1)

    • The act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. ____ or House Bill No. ____ of the 103rd Legislature is enacted into law (i.e., a conditional effective date contingent on companion legislation).

Affected Parties and Entities

  • Property owners facing condemnation actions.
  • Public agencies and private entities undertaking condemnation (eminent domain) to acquire property for public uses.
  • Courts in Michigan, specifically the Court of Appeals as the appellate path for certain orders.
  • Agencies issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity (e.g., Public Service Commission, federal authorities) whose determinations can influence prima facie considerations.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Immediate hearing timeline: 30 days from filing a motion to review necessity.
  • Court decision deadline: within 60 days after the hearing is first scheduled.
  • Appeals: certain orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals only with leave; routine appeals related to just compensation may follow standard routes.
  • Conditional effectiveness: changes only take effect if related companion legislation is enacted.

Practical Impact

  • Property owners gain a formal mechanism to challenge necessity with a clearly defined review timeline.
  • Courts will assess necessity with a clarified (and sometimes heightened) evidentiary standard, particularly in blight-related takings.
  • The procedures could streamline or constrain challenges depending on whether agency determinations are binding (public agency) or require court evaluation (private agency).
  • The conditional effective date means the reform depends on passage of companion bills.

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

Sign in to ask a question.