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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303 (2026)

Concurrent jurisdiction; removal; purpose and policy.

✓ 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


700.1303 Concurrent jurisdiction; removal; purpose and policy.

Sec. 1303.

    (1) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred by section 1302 and other laws, the court has concurrent legal and equitable jurisdiction to do all of the following in regard to an estate of a decedent, protected individual, ward, or trust:

    (a) Determine a property right or interest.

    (b) Authorize partition of property.

    (c) Authorize or compel specific performance of a contract in a joint or mutual will or of a contract to leave property by will.

    (d) Ascertain if individuals have survived as provided in this act.

    (e) Determine cy pres or a gift, grant, bequest, or devise in trust or otherwise as provided in 1915 PA 280, MCL 554.351 to 554.353.

    (f) Hear and decide an action or proceeding against a distributee of a fiduciary of the estate to enforce liability that arises because the estate was liable upon some claim or demand before distribution of the estate.

    (g) Impose a constructive trust.

    (h) Hear and decide a claim by or against a fiduciary or trustee for the return of property.

    (i) Hear and decide a contract proceeding or action by or against an estate, trust, or ward.

    (j) Require, hear, or settle an accounting of an agent under a power of attorney.

    (2) If the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction of an action or proceeding that is pending in another court, on the motion of a party to the action or proceeding and after a finding and order on the jurisdictional issue, the other court may order removal of the action or proceeding to the probate court. If the action or proceeding is removed to the probate court, the other court shall forward to the probate court the original of all papers in the action or proceeding. After that transfer, the other court shall not hear the action or proceeding.

    (3) The underlying purpose and policy of this section is to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the probate and other related actions or proceedings in the probate court.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 54, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 287, Eff. Dec. 26, 2016 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 490, Eff. Apr. 6, 2017

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Brody v. Deutchman (In Re Rhea Brody Living Trust), 910 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brody v. Deutchman (In Re Rhea Brody Living Trust), 910 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “8035(3) with the Legislature's stated purpose for its broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction on the probate court, which is "to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the…”
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “For example, MCL 700.1303(3) states: The underlying purpose and policy of this section is to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the probate and other related actions…”
In Re Geror, 779 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “” The statute imposes no limits on the types of contract actions and, further, the Legislature explained in MCL 700.1303(3) that the purpose of the statute was to simplify the disposition of actions involving estates.”
In Re Capuzzi Est., 684 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 700.1303 effective April 1, 2000. 1998 PA 386 .”
In Re Temple Marital Trust, 748 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 700.1303(l)(b); see, also, Van Etten, supra at 287 (observing that MCL 700.”
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “1303(1) provides probate courts with further jurisdictional authority, which includes, in part, concurrent legal and equitable jurisdiction to determine a property *662 right or interest, authorize the partition of property, authorize or compel specific performance of a contract…”
In Re Shields Est., 656 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “However, after Kus was decided, the Legislature added a statutory provision granting the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over contract claims brought by an estate, see 1989 PA 69 , and that provision was retained when the Legislature revised the statutory scheme in 1998,…”
Papazian v. Goldberg (In Re Mardigian Est.), 917 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 2018). “While a rebuttable presumption might have been a sufficient equitable remedy in a different era, changes in the law and our ethics code make it not much protection at all today.”
In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust, 833 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “MCL 700.1303(l)(a). Without question, Mark is a “trust beneficiary” of the BR Trust.”
In Re Rudell Est., 780 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 700.1303(l)(a). 2 Count I of petitioner’s amended complaint sought an accounting and requested money damages from respondent.”
Kawecki Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Cnty. of MacOmb, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “) Defendants, in contrast, point to the Michigan statutes that grant probate courts the authority to “[h]ear and decide a claim by or against a fiduciary or trustee for the return of property,” Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303 (l)(h), and to address a fiduciary’s “misfeasance,…”
In re Draves Trust, 828 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” MCL 700.1303(3). However, although the probate court is entrusted with jurisdiction over matters involving trusts, its supervisory power is not automatic.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1) — 10 cases
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “1303(1) provides probate courts with further jurisdictional authority, which includes, in part, concurrent legal and equitable jurisdiction to determine a property *662 right or interest, authorize the partition of property, authorize or compel specific performance of a contract…”
In Re Geror, 779 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” The statute imposes no limits on the types of contract actions and, further, the Legislature explained in MCL 700.1303(3) that the purpose of the statute was to simplify the disposition of actions involving estates.”
in Re Lewerenz Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1)(a) — 11 cases
Mark L Rugiero v. George R Lubienski (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
in Re McLaurin Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Mark L Rugiero v. George R Lubienski (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Keith J Mitan v. Farmington Square Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
In Re Knoblock Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1)(g) — 1 case
Mark L Rugiero v. George R Lubienski (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1)(h) — 3 cases
in Re Doreen Seklar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
in Re Doreen Seklar (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Brent D Jarman v. Bryan S Jarman (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1)(i) — 8 cases
In Re Shields Est., 656 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “However, after Kus was decided, the Legislature added a statutory provision granting the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over contract claims brought by an estate, see 1989 PA 69 , and that provision was retained when the Legislature revised the statutory scheme in 1998,…”
Michelene Crowley v. Michigan Realty Solutions (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Bagley & Langan Pllc v. Quintina Austin Special Needs Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Bagley & Langan Pllc v. Quintina Austin Special Needs Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
in Re Lewerenz Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(1)(j) — 3 cases
Mark L Rugiero v. George R Lubienski (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(2) — 6 cases
In Re John R Adams Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
20230105_C358735_27_358735.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re Howe Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
in Re Est. of Kenneth Waller (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Est. of Oscar L Batchelor v. Reverse Mortg. Solutions Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(3) — 15 cases
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “For example, MCL 700.1303(3) states: The underlying purpose and policy of this section is to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the probate and other related actions…”
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “1303(1) provides probate courts with further jurisdictional authority, which includes, in part, concurrent legal and equitable jurisdiction to determine a property *662 right or interest, authorize the partition of property, authorize or compel specific performance of a contract…”
Brody v. Deutchman (In Re Rhea Brody Living Trust), 910 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “8035(3) with the Legislature's stated purpose for its broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction on the probate court, which is "to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the…”
In Re Geror, 779 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” The statute imposes no limits on the types of contract actions and, further, the Legislature explained in MCL 700.1303(3) that the purpose of the statute was to simplify the disposition of actions involving estates.”
In Re Shields Est., 656 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “However, after Kus was decided, the Legislature added a statutory provision granting the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over contract claims brought by an estate, see 1989 PA 69 , and that provision was retained when the Legislature revised the statutory scheme in 1998,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(a) — 1 case
In Re Knoblock Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(h) — 4 cases
Brody v. Deutchman (In Re Rhea Brody Living Trust), 910 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “8035(3) with the Legislature's stated purpose for its broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction on the probate court, which is "to simplify the disposition of an action or proceeding involving a decedent's, a protected individual's, a ward's, or a trust estate by consolidating the…”
in the Matter of Rhea Brody Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
in Re Pearl Franzel Irrevocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
in Re Pearl Franzel Irrevocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(j) — 2 cases
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Est. of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(l)(a) — 3 cases
In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust, 833 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “MCL 700.1303(l)(a). Without question, Mark is a “trust beneficiary” of the BR Trust.”
In Re Rudell Est., 780 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 700.1303(l)(a). 2 Count I of petitioner’s amended complaint sought an accounting and requested money damages from respondent.”
In re Draves Trust, 828 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” MCL 700.1303(3). However, although the probate court is entrusted with jurisdiction over matters involving trusts, its supervisory power is not automatic.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(l)(b) — 1 case
In Re Temple Marital Trust, 748 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 700.1303(l)(b); see, also, Van Etten, supra at 287 (observing that MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1303(l)(i) — 1 case
In Re Geror, 779 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” The statute imposes no limits on the types of contract actions and, further, the Legislature explained in MCL 700.1303(3) that the purpose of the statute was to simplify the disposition of actions involving estates.”
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.