ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.2404 Exempt property.
Sec. 2404.
(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 $10,000.00 more than the amount of any security interests to which the property is subject. If there is no surviving spouse, the decedent's children who are not excluded under subsection (4) are entitled jointly to the same value.
(2) If encumbered assets are selected and the value in excess of security interests, plus that of other exempt property, is less than $10,000.00, or if there is not $10,000.00 worth of exempt property in the estate, the spouse or children who are not excluded under subsection (4) are entitled to other assets of the estate, if any, to the extent necessary to make up the $10,000.00 value. Rights to exempt property and assets needed to make up a deficiency of exempt property have priority over all claims against the estate, except that the right to assets to make up a deficiency of exempt property abates as necessary to permit payment of all of the following in the following order:
(a) Administration costs and expenses.
(b) Reasonable funeral and burial expenses.
(c) Homestead allowance.
(d) Family allowance.
(3) The rights under this section are in addition to a benefit or share passing to the surviving spouse or children by the decedent's will, unless otherwise provided, by intestate succession, or by elective share. The $10,000.00 amount described in this section must be adjusted as provided in section 1210.
(4) The decedent may exclude 1 or more of the decedent's children from receiving exempt property or assets to make up a deficiency of exempt property under subsection (1) by either of the following means:
(a) The decedent by will expressly states either of the following:
(i) The child takes nothing.
(ii) The child takes an amount of $10.00 or less from the estate.
(b) The decedent by will expressly states that the child is not to receive exempt property under this section.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 177, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2000 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 143, Eff. Aug. 8, 2018
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · 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 61× “Following the decedent’s death, petitioner filed an objection to the final account “on the basis that the Personal Representative has refused to pay Petitioner the exempt property allowance as required by MCL 700.2404 . . . .” Petitioner asked the court to award the exempt…”
Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2202 , a homestead allowance of $20,000 under Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2402 , an exempt property allowance of $13,000 under Mich.”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“2402” and as the “exempt property authorized by MCL 700.2404.” Fields for a family allowance were also completed on the form, as follows: “A family allowance of $23,000.”
in Re Weingrad Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “-4- Next, appellant argues that her claim for exempt property under MCL 700.2404 was improperly denied. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State v. Bruederle, 2012 ND 26 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “After the hearing, the district court issued a written order granting Betty Wicklund’s petition for an elective share of $67,000 plus one-fourth of the estate under Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2202 , a homestead allowance of $20,000 under Mich.”
Keith J Mitan v. Farmington Square Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “The court also found that plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the estate’s claims under MCL 700.2404. Therefore, the trial court ruled that “[p]laintiff’s claims are subject to summary disposition due to his unauthorized practice of law and invalid assignments.”
In Re Nielsen Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “2405, Neal’s children may not select items from the devise as part of their exempt-property allowance under MCL 700.2404. The probate court ruled in favor of Neal’s children and determined that the devise was a general devise.”
P in Re E Earl Lyden Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “entitled to household furniture, automobiles, furnishings, appliances, and personal effects from the estate up to a value not to exceed $10,000.00 more than the amount of any security interests to which the property is subject.”
in Re Cary Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“, MCL 700.2404. 4 My review of the record leaves me with serious questions as to the reasonableness of various charges against the estate under the facts and circumstances in this case.”
in Re Cary Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“, MCL 700.2404. 4 My review of the record leaves me with serious questions as to the reasonableness of various charges against the estate under the facts and circumstances in this case.”
Maria T Prose v. Thomas M Prose (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff relies on In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 719 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015), in which this Court interpreted the term “entitled” as used in MCL 700.2404(1), a section of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404(1) — 3 cases
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Following the decedent’s death, petitioner filed an objection to the final account “on the basis that the Personal Representative has refused to pay Petitioner the exempt property allowance as required by MCL 700.2404 . . . .” Petitioner asked the court to award the exempt…”
in Re Weingrad Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“-4- Next, appellant argues that her claim for exempt property under MCL 700.2404 was improperly denied. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”
Maria T Prose v. Thomas M Prose (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff relies on In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich App 706, 719 ; 881 NW2d 487 (2015), in which this Court interpreted the term “entitled” as used in MCL 700.2404(1), a section of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404(2) — 3 cases
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Following the decedent’s death, petitioner filed an objection to the final account “on the basis that the Personal Representative has refused to pay Petitioner the exempt property allowance as required by MCL 700.2404 . . . .” Petitioner asked the court to award the exempt…”
Keith J Mitan v. Farmington Square Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“The court also found that plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the estate’s claims under MCL 700.2404. Therefore, the trial court ruled that “[p]laintiff’s claims are subject to summary disposition due to his unauthorized practice of law and invalid assignments.”
in Re Weingrad Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“-4- Next, appellant argues that her claim for exempt property under MCL 700.2404 was improperly denied. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404(3) — 1 case
in Re Jajuga Est., 881 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Following the decedent’s death, petitioner filed an objection to the final account “on the basis that the Personal Representative has refused to pay Petitioner the exempt property allowance as required by MCL 700.2404 . . . .” Petitioner asked the court to award the exempt…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2404(4) — 1 case
in Re Weingrad Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“-4- Next, appellant argues that her claim for exempt property under MCL 700.2404 was improperly denied. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”
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.