Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.381 (2026)

Public welfare purposes; validity of gifts and bequests.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GIFTS, GRANTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVISES

Act 373 of 1925

554.381 Public welfare purposes; validity of gifts and bequests.

Sec. 1.

No statutory or common law rule of this state against perpetuities or restraint of alienation shall hereafter invalidate any gift, grant, devise or bequest, in trust or otherwise, for public welfare purposes.

History: 1925, Act 373, Eff. Aug. 27, 1925 ;-- CL 1929, 13516 ;-- CL 1948, 554.381

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1958–2008 · leading case: City of Huntington Woods v. City of Detroit, 761 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Huntington Woods v. City of Detroit, 761 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” See also MCL 123.871. Because the agreement delineated in the Rackham deed requiring maintenance of the property as a public golf course for use by the public clearly qualifies as one invoking a public-welfare purpose, it is statutorily exempt as an unlawful restraint on…”

Stevens Mineral Co. v. Michigan, 418 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, the court stated that even if the rule against perpetuities were violated, the conveyance to defendant of the mineral rights in the property after the period of reservation had expired would still not be void pursuant to MCL 554.”

LaFond v. City of Detroit, 98 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1959). “1193), and by reason of the provisions of PA 1925, No 373, being CL 1948, §§ 554.381, 554.382 (Stat Ann 1953 Rev §§ 26.”

Love v. Sullivan, 146 N.W.2d 117 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “It may be noted that PA 1925, No 373 (CL 1948, § 554.381 et seq. [Stat Ann 1953 Rev §26.”

Cleveland v. Second Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 92 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. 1958). “It may be noted that PA 1925, No 373 (CL 1948, § 554.381 et seq. [Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.”

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.