Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.838 (2026)

Disqualification of probate judge.

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

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.838 Disqualification of probate judge.

Sec. 838.

    (1) A probate judge shall not sit in any proceeding:

    (a) In which he is a party, or is financially interested.

    (b) In which he would be excluded from being a juror by reason of consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties.

    (c) In which he is related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the attorneys of any party, witness, or representative in the proceeding. This disqualification may be waived by stipulation filed in the proceeding.

    (d) Which involves or may involve the validity or interpretation of a will, contract, deed, mortgage, bill of sale, note or other document which he prepared, in the preparation of which he assisted, or to the execution of which he acted as a witness.

    (e) Which involves a contested matter concerning which he advised a party to the contest.

    (f) In which a probate register or other employee of the probate court in that county or probate court district, while holding that office or employment, prepared or assisted in the preparation of a will, contract, deed, mortgage, bill of sale, note, or other document involved in the hearing or trial, or acted as a witness to the execution thereof.

    (2) A judge of probate shall not decide nor participate in the decision of any question which is argued in the court when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge.

    (3) When a probate judge is disqualified within the meaning of subsection (1) or (2), the judge shall be deemed incapacitated for purposes of section 824.

History: Add. 1978, Act 543, Eff. July 1, 1979

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2021 · leading case: in Re Jacobson Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in Re Jacobson Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” It is undisputed that Judge Burton was not present and sitting as a judge at the February 24, 2016 hearing.”
Pandemonium Inc v. Northcrest Dev. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “5839(1)(a); or, alternatively, that the claims were preserved by application of the six-month discovery rule under MCL 600.838(2). However, because all claims against Sarkisian and Foresta Architects were subject to the trial court’s ruling on res judicata, which we have…”
Pandemonium Inc v. Northcrest Dev. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “5839(1)(a); or, alternatively, that the claims were preserved by application of the six-month discovery rule under MCL 600.838(2). However, because all claims against Sarkisian and Foresta Architects were subject to the trial court’s ruling on res judicata, which we have…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.838(2) — 3 cases
in Re Jacobson Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” It is undisputed that Judge Burton was not present and sitting as a judge at the February 24, 2016 hearing.”
Pandemonium Inc v. Northcrest Dev. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “5839(1)(a); or, alternatively, that the claims were preserved by application of the six-month discovery rule under MCL 600.838(2). However, because all claims against Sarkisian and Foresta Architects were subject to the trial court’s ruling on res judicata, which we have…”
Pandemonium Inc v. Northcrest Dev. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “5839(1)(a); or, alternatively, that the claims were preserved by application of the six-month discovery rule under MCL 600.838(2). However, because all claims against Sarkisian and Foresta Architects were subject to the trial court’s ruling on res judicata, which we have…”
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.