Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 700 / Act 386 of 1998
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1201 (2026)

Purposes; rules of construction.

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

ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE


Act 386 of 1998


700.1201 Purposes; rules of construction.

Sec. 1201.

    This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which include all of the following:

    (a) To simplify and clarify the law concerning the affairs of decedents, missing individuals, protected individuals, minors, and legally incapacitated individuals.

    (b) To discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property.

    (c) To promote a speedy and efficient system for liquidating a decedent's estate and making distribution to the decedent's successors.

    (d) To make the law uniform among the various jurisdictions, both within and outside of this state.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “] MCL 700.1201 delineates specific rules of construction that should be applied when interpreting EPIC: This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which include all of the following: *713 (a) To simplify and clarify the law…”
Papazian v. Goldberg (In Re Mardigian Est.), 917 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 4× “HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK One of the underlying purposes and policies of EPIC is "[t]o discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property," MCL 700.1201(b) (emphasis added), but this purpose long predates EPIC and is entrenched deeply within…”
in Re Certified Question (Mattison v. Soc SEC), 825 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 6× “3 MCL 700.1201(b). 2 within that period would be entitled to inherit from the deceased parent by intestate succession.”
King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “” MCL 700.1201. EPIC grants a decedent’s surviving spouse certain rights.”
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “[MCL 700.1201.] Significant procedural innovations have accompanied the evolution of the probate court's substantive powers.”
Guardianship & Alternatives, Inc. v. Jones (In re Horton), 925 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “In a contested will case, the proponent of a will bears "the burden of establishing prima facie proof of due execution .”
Vansach v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (In re Est. of Vansach), 922 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “5 See MCL 700.1201(a). In particular, *383 Article v.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 700.1201(b) and (c). The provisions relevant to this case are within article III of EPIC, MCL 700.”
in Re Attia Est., 895 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” MCL 700.1201(b). EPIC permits the admission of extrinsic evidence in order to determine whether the decedent intended a document to constitute his or her will.”
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 700.1201; MCL 700.1303(3). Consistently with this purpose, the Legislature expanded the probate court’s powers and included “provisions designed to reduce court involvement in trusts and estates.”
In Re Turpening Est., 671 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The purpose expressed in MCL 700.1201 states in part, “This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote .”
Lentini v. Urbancic, 686 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “5852 in a way that served the purpose of the statute in that it provided an objectively verifiable, easily ascertainable date from which to calculate the running of limitations and limitations savings provisions. This interpretation also advances one of the purposes of the…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1201(a) — 4 cases
Vansach v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (In re Est. of Vansach), 922 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “5 See MCL 700.1201(a). In particular, *383 Article v.”
in Re Joseph Vansach Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
in Re Joseph Vansach Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
in Re the Guardianship of Mark Kadans (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1201(b) — 21 cases
Papazian v. Goldberg (In Re Mardigian Est.), 917 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 2018). “HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK One of the underlying purposes and policies of EPIC is "[t]o discover and make effective a decedent's intent in distribution of the decedent's property," MCL 700.1201(b) (emphasis added), but this purpose long predates EPIC and is entrenched deeply within…”
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “] MCL 700.1201 delineates specific rules of construction that should be applied when interpreting EPIC: This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which include all of the following: *713 (a) To simplify and clarify the law…”
in Re Certified Question (Mattison v. Soc SEC), 825 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2012). “3 MCL 700.1201(b). 2 within that period would be entitled to inherit from the deceased parent by intestate succession.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 700.1201(b) and (c). The provisions relevant to this case are within article III of EPIC, MCL 700.”
in Re Attia Est., 895 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” MCL 700.1201(b). EPIC permits the admission of extrinsic evidence in order to determine whether the decedent intended a document to constitute his or her will.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1201(c) — 6 cases
in Re Certified Question (Mattison v. Soc SEC), 825 N.W.2d 566 (Mich. 2012). “3 MCL 700.1201(b). 2 within that period would be entitled to inherit from the deceased parent by intestate succession.”
Lentini v. Urbancic, 686 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “5852 in a way that served the purpose of the statute in that it provided an objectively verifiable, easily ascertainable date from which to calculate the running of limitations and limitations savings provisions. This interpretation also advances one of the purposes of the…”
in Re Koehler Est., 314 Mich. App. 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Lentini v. Urbancic, 686 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
in Re Koehler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1201(d) — 1 case
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “] MCL 700.1201 delineates specific rules of construction that should be applied when interpreting EPIC: This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which include all of the following: *713 (a) To simplify and clarify the law…”
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.