ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.2603 Substitute gift.
Sec. 2603.
(1) If a devisee fails to survive the testator and is a grandparent, a grandparent's descendant, or a stepchild of either the testator or the donor of a power of appointment exercised by the testator's will, the following apply:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if the devise is not in the form of a class gift and the deceased devisee leaves surviving descendants, a substitute gift is created in the devisee's surviving descendants. Those surviving descendants take by representation the property to which the devisee would have been entitled had the devisee survived the testator.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if the devise is in the form of a class gift, other than a devise to "issue", "descendants", "heirs of the body", "heirs", "next of kin", "relatives", or "family", or to a class described by language of similar import, a substitute gift is created in the surviving descendants of a deceased devisee. The property to which the devisee would have been entitled had all class members survived the testator passes to the surviving devisees and the deceased devisees' surviving descendants. Each surviving devisee takes the share to which he or she would have been entitled had the deceased devisees survived the testator. Each deceased devisee's surviving descendants who are substituted for the deceased devisee take by representation the share to which the deceased devisee would have been entitled had the deceased devisee survived the testator. For the purposes of this subdivision, "deceased devisee" means a class member who fails to survive the testator and leaves 1 or more surviving descendants.
(c) For the purposes of section 2602(1), words of survivorship, such as in a devise to an individual "if he survives me" or in a devise to "my surviving children", are not, in the absence of additional evidence, a sufficient indication of an intent contrary to the application of this section.
(d) If the will creates an alternative devise with respect to a devise for which a substitute gift is created by subdivision (a) or (b), the substitute gift is superseded by the alternative devise only if an expressly designated devisee of the alternative devise is entitled to take under the will.
(e) Unless the language creating a power of appointment expressly excludes the substitution of the appointee's descendants for the appointee, a surviving descendant of a deceased appointee of a power of appointment can be substituted for the appointee under this section, whether or not the descendant is an object of the power.
(2) If, under subsection (1), substitute gifts are created and not superseded with respect to more than 1 devise and the devises are alternative devises, one to the other, the determination of which of the substitute gifts take effect is resolved as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the devised property passes under the primary substitute gift.
(b) If there is a younger-generation devise, the devised property passes under the younger-generation substitute gift and not under the primary substitute gift.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) "Primary devise" means the devise that would have taken effect had all the deceased devisees of the alternative devises who left surviving descendants survived the testator.
(b) "Primary substitute gift" means the substitute gift created with respect to the primary devise.
(c) "Younger-generation devise" means a devise for which all of the following are true:
(i) Is to a descendant of a devisee of the primary devise.
(ii) Is an alternative devise with respect to the primary devise.
(iii) Is a devise for which a substitute gift is created.
(iv) Would have taken effect had all the deceased devisees who left surviving descendants survived the testator except the deceased devisee or devisees of the primary devise.
(d) "Younger-generation substitute gift" means the substitute gift created with respect to the younger-generation devise.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 2005–2017 · leading case:
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
· cites it 20× “Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
In Re Raymond Est., 739 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Although all the respondents are included in the claim of appeal, only respondents Valerie Sharkey, Gail Thomas, Gary Zeigler, Deanna Conant, Caryn Nuzhet, Jay Curry, Mary Jean Mandela, John Packard, Frank Packard, Lisa Morse, and…”
In Re Est. of Raymond, 748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008).
“eased siblings of the testator (or Claude Raymond) which only takes effect if all of the testator's (or Claude Raymond's) siblings predecease the testator; (3) what significance, if any, should be attributed to the placement of the language "share and share alike" in the middle…”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
Hill v. Flint, 703 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“Sections 2603 and 2604, MCL 700.2603 and 700.2604, address substitute gifts and failures of testamentary provisions, respectively.”
In Re Est. of Sprenkle-Hill, 703 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“§§ 700.2603 and 700.2604, address substitute gifts and failures of testamentary provisions, respectively.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(1) — 3 cases
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(1)(a) — 2 cases
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(1)(b) — 1 case
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(1)(c) — 2 cases
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
In Re Raymond Est., 739 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Although all the respondents are included in the claim of appeal, only respondents Valerie Sharkey, Gail Thomas, Gary Zeigler, Deanna Conant, Caryn Nuzhet, Jay Curry, Mary Jean Mandela, John Packard, Frank Packard, Lisa Morse, and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(1)(d) — 3 cases
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
in Re Est. of Eugenie Dietrich (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant Peter Dietrich appeals as of right an opinion and order admitting the will of Eugenie Dietrich to probate and determining that intervenors Renee Dietrich and Racquel Dietrich should each receive a share in the estate under the anti-lapse provisions of MCL 700.2603.…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(l)(b) — 1 case
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(l)(c) — 2 cases
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
In Re Raymond Est., 739 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Although all the respondents are included in the claim of appeal, only respondents Valerie Sharkey, Gail Thomas, Gary Zeigler, Deanna Conant, Caryn Nuzhet, Jay Curry, Mary Jean Mandela, John Packard, Frank Packard, Lisa Morse, and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2603(l)(d) — 1 case
In Re Raymond Est., 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009).
“Petitioner further asked the court to find that the antilapse statute, MCL 700.2603, did not apply on the basis of the alternative devise created by the language "or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
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.