ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.2403 Family allowance.
Sec. 2403.
(1) For their maintenance during the period of administration, a reasonable family allowance is payable to the decedent's surviving spouse and minor children whom the decedent was obligated to support, and children of the decedent or another who were in fact being supported by the decedent, which allowance shall not continue for longer than 1 year if the estate is inadequate to discharge allowed claims. The family allowance may be paid in a lump sum or in periodic installments. The family allowance is payable to the surviving spouse, if living, for the use of the surviving spouse and minor and dependent children; otherwise to the children or persons having their care and custody. If a minor child or dependent child is not living with the surviving spouse, the allowance may be paid partially to the child or to a fiduciary or other person having the child's care and custody, and partially to the spouse, as their needs may appear.
(2) The family allowance is exempt from and has priority over all claims except administration costs and expenses, reasonable funeral and burial expenses, and the homestead allowance. The family allowance is not chargeable against a benefit or share passing to the surviving spouse or children by the will of the decedent, unless otherwise provided, by intestate succession, or by way of elective share. The death of an individual entitled to family allowance terminates the right to allowances not yet paid.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 177, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2000
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “2402, MCL 700.2403, and MCL 700.2404 clearly indicated that the Legislature intended for those provisions to operate in a parallel manner.”
In Re Seymour Est., 671 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “Respondent alleges that the probate court erred in refusing to consider factors other than petitioner’s expenses when determining the family allowance pur *253 suant to MCL 700.2403. We agree. MCL 700.2403 provides: (1) For their maintenance during the period of administration,…”
Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2402 , an exempt property allowance of $13,000 under Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404 , and a family allowance of $24,000 under Mich.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“00 per year has been determined as authorized by MCL 700.2403 and MCL 700.2405.” On August 14, 2008, petition filed an inventory listing only “Claim on Proceeds of CD Held By First Federal Bank” and listing “[$]0.”
State v. Bruederle, 2012 ND 26 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2402 , an exempt property allowance of $13,000 under Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404 , and a family allowance of $24,000 under Mich.”
in Re Collier Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“We concluded that the electronically created note constituted the final will of the decedent under MCL 700.2403. Id. at 333-334 . In reaching that conclusion, we stated: A will need not be written in a particular form or use any particular words; for example, a letter or other…”
P in Re E Earl Lyden Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” MCL 700.2403(1). These statutory provisions lend further support for the proposition that public policy does not support the disinheritance of a surviving spouse.”
In Re Nielsen Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“2404 provides an exempt-property allowance and states, in relevant part: (1) The decedent’s surviving spouse is also entitled to household furniture, automobiles, furnishings, appliances, and personal effects from the estate up to a value not to exceed $10,000.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2403(1) — 1 case
P in Re E Earl Lyden Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” MCL 700.2403(1). These statutory provisions lend further support for the proposition that public policy does not support the disinheritance of a surviving spouse.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2403(2) — 1 case
In Re Seymour Est., 671 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Respondent alleges that the probate court erred in refusing to consider factors other than petitioner’s expenses when determining the family allowance pur *253 suant to MCL 700.2403. We agree. MCL 700.2403 provides: (1) For their maintenance during the period of administration,…”
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.