Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 554 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.35 (2026)

Expectant estates; qualities.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


554.35 Expectant estates; qualities.

Sec. 35.

    Expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable, in the same manner as estates in possession.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 62 ;-- CL 1857, 2619 ;-- CL 1871, 4102 ;-- How. 5551 ;-- CL 1897, 8817 ;-- CL 1915, 11553 ;-- CL 1929, 12955 ;-- CL 1948, 554.35

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1961–2019 · leading case: Wengel v. Wengel, 714 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wengel v. Wengel, 714 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “shall not be limited on a contingency, defeating or avoiding such precedent estate, it shall be construed as intended to take effect only on the death of the first taker[.”
Detroit Bank & Trust Co. v. Grout, 289 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “In this regard it should be noted that MCL 554.35; MSA 26.35 provides: "Expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable, in the same manner as estates in possession.”
Old Mission Peninsula Sch. Dist. v. French, 107 N.W.2d 758 (Mich. 1961). “See, also, CL 1948, § 554.35 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 26.35), effective 1847, and CL 1948, § 554.”
Fouts v. United States, 107 F. Supp. 2d 815 (W.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 554.35. It has also been held that a beneficiary’s interest in trust income was property for purposes of imposing a tax lien.”
Glaser's Elevator & Lumber Co. v. Lee Homes, Inc., 237 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “The vested remainder interest may be mortgaged, MCLA 554.35; MSA 26.35: "Expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable, in the same manner as estates in possession.”
In Re Edgar Est., 357 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The Michigan Supreme Court set out the following prerequisites for a spendthrift trust: "In order to create a spendthrift trust certain prerequisites must be observed, to-wit: first, the gift to the donee must be only of the income.”
Gladys Ragsdale Trust v. Tostige (In re Tostige), 537 B.R. 847 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 4× “Under Michigan law, a beneficiary of an inter vivos revocable trust “has a vested interest in the [trust] property and the power to revoke is a condition subsequent which will result in divestment of the interest;” and this interest is an “expectant estate” that is “descendible,…”
Roy v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co., 137 Mich. App. 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The Michigan Supreme Court set out the following prerequisites for a spendthrift trust: "In order to create a spendthrift trust certain prerequisites must be observed, to-wit: fírst, the gift to the donee must be only of the income.”
Albro v. Allen, 428 N.W.2d 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “With regard to Allen’s future contingent interest, a fee simple, we hold that her conveyance of that interest to a third party would not defeat the survivorship element of the precedent joint life estate and, thus, can be conveyed.”
Marsheri D D Everson v. Delores J Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “shall not be limited on a contingency, defeating or avoiding such precedent estate, it shall be construed as intended to take effect only on the death of the first taker[.”
West v. McLoughlin, 201 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “3 The estate of each was descendible, devisable and alienable, MCLA 554.35; MSA 26.35, but still subject to being defeated by occurrence of the stated contingency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.