Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.51 (2026)

Rule against perpetuities; applicability; uniformity.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES

Act 38 of 1949

554.51 Rule against perpetuities; applicability; uniformity.

Sec. 1.

The common law rule known as the rule against perpetuities now in force in this state as to personal property shall hereafter be applicable to real property and estates and other interests therein, whether freehold or non-freehold, legal or equitable, by way of trust or otherwise, thereby making uniform the rule as to perpetuities applicable to real and personal property.

History: 1949, Act 38, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1961–2019 · leading case: Randolph v. Reisig, 727 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Randolph v. Reisig, 727 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “2 The Michigan statutory rule against perpetuities that governs interests created between September 23, 1949, and December 27, 1988, provides as follows: The common law rule known as the rule against perpetuities now in force in this state as to personal property shall hereafter…”

Moffit v. Sederlund, 378 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “See Lemon v Nicholai, supra, p 649, and Nichols v Ann Arbor Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, supra, p 168. Defendants also argue that the royalty pooling deed violated the rule against perpetuities and was therefore invalid.”

Stenke v. Masland Dev. Co., Inc., 394 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 554.51; MSA 26.49(1). The statute also expanded the rule to apply to both real and personal property interests.”

Hubscher & Son, Inc v. Storey, 578 N.W.2d 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “Next, defendants argue that the lower court erred in granting plaintiff summary disposition on the basis that the parties’ contract did not violate the rule against perpetuities.”

Stevens Mineral Co. v. Michigan, 418 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “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.”

Johnson v. Atchinson, 106 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 1961). “15]); repealed by PA 1949, No 38 (CLS 1956, § 554.51 et seq. [ Stat Ann 1957 Rev $ 26.”

Cindy Schaaf v. Charlene Forbes (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “MCL 554.51, et seq.; MCL 554.71, et seq.; 554.”

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.