Michigan renters must have at least one way to pay rent without an added transaction fee under a newly enacted change to the state’s Truth in Renting Act. The measure targets leases that nominally offer multiple payment channels but attach a convenience or processing charge to every one of them.
Senate Bill 373 bars a rental agreement from imposing an additional charge on every permitted method of paying rent. When a landlord allows more than one method, at least one must be available without an extra fee. The statute does not require landlords to accept every payment technology, nor does it prohibit fees on all optional methods.
The distinction is practical for tenants increasingly directed to online portals. Card, bank-transfer and third-party payment charges can turn the advertised rent into a higher recurring obligation. A fee-free path—such as check, automated clearinghouse transfer or another method selected by the landlord—preserves a way to satisfy the lease at the stated rent.
The Legislature approved the bill with bipartisan margins. The Senate voted 24-12 and the House 99-5, according to the legislative account published after final passage. Sen. Mary Cavanagh of Redford Township sponsored the measure. Those votes addressed the payment-fee provision separately from a companion bill concerning electronic returns of security-deposit balances.
Michigan’s underlying Truth in Renting Act already restricts lease terms that waive statutory rights, shift certain legal burdens or conflict with landlord-tenant law. The new language adds payment-method charges to that framework, making the written lease—not an informal promise—the central compliance document.
For tenants, the immediate step is to identify the fee-free option in the lease or payment instructions before rent is due. A landlord may continue to offer faster or rewards-linked methods that carry a disclosed charge, but cannot make the fee unavoidable. Tenants should preserve the lease, portal screenshots and receipts if every available channel adds a surcharge.
For property managers, compliance may require adjusting portal settings, lease templates and notices across existing properties. The rule regulates the availability of a no-fee method rather than dictating which vendor or technology must be used. That leaves room for different operating models while establishing a clear floor: paying the amount called “rent” cannot itself require an additional payment in every case.
The law is narrow and does not cap rent, eliminate late fees authorized by a valid lease or change eviction procedures. Its consequence is more specific: a routine cost of processing rent can no longer be made compulsory through the design of the landlord’s payment system.
Enforcement will depend on the statute’s effective date and the facts of each lease. Renters who believe no fee-free option exists should first request written clarification from the property manager and avoid withholding rent without legal advice. Housing counselors or an attorney can assess whether a charge violates the amended act and what remedy is available.
