Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 554 / Act 13 of 1968
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.61 (2026)

Terminable interest, specified contingency; definitions.

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

POSSIBILITIES OF REVERTER AND RIGHTS OF ENTRY


Act 13 of 1968


554.61 Terminable interest, specified contingency; definitions.

Sec. 1.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Terminable interest" is a possessory or ownership interest in real property which is subject to termination by a provision in a conveyance or other instrument which either creates a right of reversion to a grantor or his heirs, successors or assigns or creates a right of entry on the occurrence of a specified contingency.

    (b) "Specified contingency" is the event described in a conveyance or other instrument creating a terminable interest, the occurrence of which requires or permits the divesting of the terminable interest.

History: 1968, Act 13, Imd. Eff. Mar. 29, 1968

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: Ludington & N. Ry. v. Epworth Assembly, 468 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ludington & N. Ry. v. Epworth Assembly, 468 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “With regard to four of the strips, the trial court held that plaintiff had acquired a fee interest and that any possibility of reverter possessed by defendant was extinguished pursuant to 1968 PA 13 , MCL 554.61 et seq.) MSA 26.49(11) et seq.”
Ditmore v. Michalik, 625 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, a right of termination is lost after thirty years unless a notice is recorded pursuant to MCL 554.65; MSA 26.49(15), which would preserve the right for an additional thirty years.”
Stevens Mineral Co. v. Michigan, 418 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff advanced two theories: (1) that defendant’s interest in the mineral rights, as created in the deed, constituted a contingent interest not certain to vest within the period required under the rule against perpetuities, and (2) that defendant’s interest in the mineral…”
Huggett v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 590 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 554.61; MSA 26.49(11). Affirmed in part and reversed in part.”
Troy 888 LLC v. Summit Wilshire LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “62 provides that “If the specified contingency does not occur within 30 years after the terminable interest is created, the right of termination by reason of the specified contingency shall be unenforceable.”
Miriam Hiser v. Vill. of MacKinaw City (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] 16 MCL 554.61 provides: As used in this act: (a) “Terminable interest” is a possessory or ownership interest in real property which is subject to termination by a provision in a conveyance or other instrument which either creates a right of reversion to a grantor or his heirs,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.61(a) — 3 cases
Ditmore v. Michalik, 625 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, a right of termination is lost after thirty years unless a notice is recorded pursuant to MCL 554.65; MSA 26.49(15), which would preserve the right for an additional thirty years.”
Ludington & N. Ry. v. Epworth Assembly, 468 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “With regard to four of the strips, the trial court held that plaintiff had acquired a fee interest and that any possibility of reverter possessed by defendant was extinguished pursuant to 1968 PA 13 , MCL 554.61 et seq.) MSA 26.49(11) et seq.”
Stevens Mineral Co. v. Michigan, 418 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Plaintiff advanced two theories: (1) that defendant’s interest in the mineral rights, as created in the deed, constituted a contingent interest not certain to vest within the period required under the rule against perpetuities, and (2) that defendant’s interest in the mineral…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.61(b) — 1 case
Ludington & N. Ry. v. Epworth Assembly, 468 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “With regard to four of the strips, the trial court held that plaintiff had acquired a fee interest and that any possibility of reverter possessed by defendant was extinguished pursuant to 1968 PA 13 , MCL 554.61 et seq.) MSA 26.49(11) et seq.”
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.