Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 554.72 (2026)

Nonvested property interest; general power of appointment, nongeneral power of appointment, or general testamentary power of appointment; validity; language measuring time period from creation of trust or other property arrangement.

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

UNIFORM STATUTORY RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES


Act 418 of 1988


554.72 Nonvested property interest; general power of appointment, nongeneral power of appointment, or general testamentary power of appointment; validity; language measuring time period from creation of trust or other property arrangement.

Sec. 2.

    (1) Subject to section 5, a nonvested property interest is invalid unless 1 or more of the following are applicable to the interest:

    (a) When the interest is created, it is certain to vest or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive.

    (b) The interest either vests or terminates within 90 years after its creation.

    (2) Subject to section 5, a general power of appointment not presently exercisable because of a condition precedent is invalid unless 1 or more of the following are applicable to the power:

    (a) When the power is created, the condition precedent is certain either to be satisfied or become impossible to satisfy no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive.

    (b) The condition precedent either is satisfied or becomes impossible to satisfy within 90 years after its creation.

    (3) Subject to section 5, a nongeneral power of appointment or a general testamentary power of appointment is invalid unless 1 or more of the following are applicable to the power:

    (a) When the power is created, it is certain to be irrevocably exercised or otherwise to terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive.

    (b) The power is irrevocably exercised or otherwise terminates within 90 years after its creation.

    (4) In determining whether a nonvested property interest or a power of appointment is valid under subsection (1)(a), (2)(a), or (3)(a), the possibility that a child will be born to an individual after the individual's death is disregarded.

    (5) If, in measuring a period from the creation of a trust or other property arrangement that was irrevocable on September 25, 1985, language in an instrument governing the effect of an exercise of a power of appointment over property exempt from federal generation skipping transfer tax (a) seeks to disallow the vesting or termination of any interest or trust beyond, (b) seeks to postpone the vesting or termination of any interest or trust until, or (c) seeks to operate in effect in any similar fashion upon, the later of (i) the expiration of a period of time ending with, or not exceeding 21 years after, the death of the survivor of specified lives in being at the creation of the trust or other property arrangement or (ii) the expiration of a period of time that exceeds or might exceed 21 years after the death of the survivor of lives in being at the creation of the trust or other property arrangement, that language is inoperative to the extent it produces a period of time that exceeds 21 years after the death of the survivor of the specified lives.

History: 1988, Act 418, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 1988 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 149, Imd. Eff. May 28, 2008

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2008–2010 · leading case: In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “(c) The imposition of a 120-hour requirement of survival would cause a nonvested property interest or a power of appointment to fail to qualify for validity under section 2(l)(a), (2)(a), or (3)(a) of the uniform statutory rule against perpetuities, 1988 PA 418 , MCL 554.72, or…”
In Re Mary E Griffin Revocable Grantor Trust, 760 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “] In this case, petitioner sought to terminate the trust on two grounds: (1) it was invalid pursuant to MCL 554.72 because of the perpetuities problem and (2) it was invalid because of undue influence by respondent.”
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.