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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.1305 (2026)

Appeals.

✓ 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


700.1305 Appeals.

Sec. 1305.

    Appellate review, including the right to appellate review or interlocutory appeal and provisions as to time, manner, notice, appeal bond, stays, scope of review, record on appeal, briefs, arguments, and the power of the appellate court, is governed by the revised judicature act of 1961 and by supreme court rule.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: In Re Temple Marital Trust, 748 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Temple Marital Trust, 748 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “See MCL 700.1305; MCL 600.866(1); MCR 5.802(B)(1); In re Webb H Coe Marital and Residuary Trusts, 233 Mich App 525, 531 ; 593 NW2d 190 (1999).”
In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust, 833 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “861(a) and MCL 700.1305. Those “final order[s]” of the probate court that are appealable by right to this Court are further “defined .”
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “, citing MCL 700.1305; MCL 600.866(1); MCR 5.802(B)(1); In re Webb H Coe Marital and Residuary Trusts, 233 Mich App 525, 531 ; 593 NW2d 190 (1999).”
in Re Douglas W Baltrip Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich App at 128, 141-142 , citing MCL 700.1305; MCL 600.866(1); MCR 5.802(B)(1).”
in Re Jacobson Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “861(a) and MCL 700.1305. Those “final order[s]” of the probate court that are appealable by right to this Court are further “defined .”
In Re Stephenson Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 700.1305. -5- 241; 331 NW2d 228 (1983), our Supreme Court, addressing alleged ambiguities in a will, observed: A patent ambiguity exists if the uncertainty as to meaning appears on the face of the instrument, and arises from the defective, obscure, or insensible language…”
In Re Harris Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 700.1305. 9 Appellee Caswell has not filed a brief on appeal.”
P in Re E Earl Lyden Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In estate proceedings, “[a]ppellate review, including the right to appellate review or interlocutory appeal and provisions as to time, manner, notice, appeal bond, stays, scope of review, record on appeal, briefs, arguments, and the power of the appellate court, is governed by…”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Scott (Mich. 2024). “75 MCL 700.1305. 76 Notably, after the trial court entered a final order of judgment and sentence, defendant raised the same issues on appeal that had been raised in his interlocutory application in this Court, and the Court of Appeals has the authority to review that issue.”
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.