Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801 (2026)

Surviving spouse; status.

✓ 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

700.2801 Surviving spouse; status.

Sec. 2801.

(1) An individual who is divorced from the decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a surviving spouse unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage, he or she is married to the decedent at the time of death. A decree of separation that does not terminate the status of married couple is not a divorce for purposes of this section.

(2) For purposes of parts 1 to 4 of this article and of section 3203, a surviving spouse does not include any of the following:

(a) An individual who obtains or consents to a final decree or judgment of divorce from the decedent or an annulment of their marriage, which decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in this state, unless they subsequently participate in a marriage ceremony purporting to marry each to the other or live together as a married couple.

(b) An individual who, following an invalid decree or judgment of divorce or annulment obtained by the decedent, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third individual.

(c) An individual who was a party to a valid proceeding concluded by an order purporting to terminate all marital property rights.

(d) An individual who, at the time of the decedent's death, is living in a bigamous relationship with another individual.

(e) An individual who did any of the following for 1 year or more before the death of the deceased person:

(i) Was willfully absent from the decedent spouse.

(ii) Deserted the decedent spouse.

(iii) Willfully neglected or refused to provide support for the decedent spouse if required to do so by law.

(3) For purposes of section 3206, a surviving spouse does not include either of the following:

(a) An individual described in subsection (2)(a) to (d).

(b) An individual who is a party to a divorce or annulment proceeding with the decedent at the time of the decedent's death.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 57, Eff. June 27, 2016 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Mar. 31, 2017

PopularName Notes:

EPIC

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 150× “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 28× “We fail to see how granting plaintiff’s equitable claim would impermissibly “extend” MCL 700.2801, when this Court is neither interpreting this provision nor acting in pursuance of its authority.”

in Re Peterson Est., 889 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 17× “[MCL 700.2801(2).][ 1 ] In determining what constitutes being “willfully absent from the decedent spouse” under MCL 700.”

Tkachik v. Mandeville, 764 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “Mandeville is limited to MCL 700.2801. MCL 700.2801(2) states that the application of subsection (2) is limited to intestate succession, spousal entitlements, and priority among persons seeking appointment as personal representative.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). · cites it 66× “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

Andrea Ells v. Est. of Donald J Ells (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 18× “[a]n individual who, at the time of the decedent’s death, is living in a bigamous relationship with another individual.” This argument, however, misconstrues the trial court’s opinion from the bench.”

in Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 17× “Under the comprehensive statutory framework set forth in EPIC, that distinction is irrelevant when determining whether a surviving spouse will be disinherited under MCL 700.2801. I find equally unavailing the majority’s reliance on the 2017 amendment to MCL 700.”

in Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 17× “The delay in getting to final judgment was no one’s fault. It is nonsensical to believe that the Legislature intended that pure serendipity could dictate whether Anne was disinherited.”

in Re Erwin Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “See MCL 700.2801. For the purposes of intestate succession, a spouse who ceased supporting the decedent spouse before his or her death may not take a share from an intestate estate: .”

In Re Lager Est., 779 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Forbes, as surviving spouse, are not barred or limited by MCL 700.2801(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court further finds that the Petitioner, Eric Lager, failed to rebut the legal presumption that his father intentionally destroyed his will, a copy of which was offered into…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(1) — 5 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

in Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “The delay in getting to final judgment was no one’s fault. It is nonsensical to believe that the Legislature intended that pure serendipity could dictate whether Anne was disinherited.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2) — 7 cases

Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010). “We fail to see how granting plaintiff’s equitable claim would impermissibly “extend” MCL 700.2801, when this Court is neither interpreting this provision nor acting in pursuance of its authority.”

in Re Peterson Est., 889 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 700.2801(2).][ 1 ] In determining what constitutes being “willfully absent from the decedent spouse” under MCL 700.”

Tkachik v. Mandeville, 764 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Mandeville is limited to MCL 700.2801. MCL 700.2801(2) states that the application of subsection (2) is limited to intestate succession, spousal entitlements, and priority among persons seeking appointment as personal representative.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(a) — 4 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(b) — 1 case

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(d) — 2 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

Andrea Ells v. Est. of Donald J Ells (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “[a]n individual who, at the time of the decedent’s death, is living in a bigamous relationship with another individual.” This argument, however, misconstrues the trial court’s opinion from the bench.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(e) — 10 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

in Re Peterson Est., 889 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 700.2801(2).][ 1 ] In determining what constitutes being “willfully absent from the decedent spouse” under MCL 700.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(e)(i) — 13 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

in Re Peterson Est., 889 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 700.2801(2).][ 1 ] In determining what constitutes being “willfully absent from the decedent spouse” under MCL 700.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(e)(ii) — 5 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(2)(e)(iii) — 4 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(3) — 5 cases

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

in Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Under the comprehensive statutory framework set forth in EPIC, that distinction is irrelevant when determining whether a surviving spouse will be disinherited under MCL 700.2801. I find equally unavailing the majority’s reliance on the 2017 amendment to MCL 700.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(3)(b) — 6 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

In Re Von Greiff Est. (Mich. 2022). “LEGAL STANDARD MCL 700.2801 describes who is not considered a “surviving spouse” for the purposes of EPIC.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(e) — 2 cases

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(e)(i) — 1 case

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2801(e)(ii) — 1 case

King v. Nash (In Re Est. of Erwin), 921 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2018). “See generally MCL 700.2801 for more examples. 3 children together, bringing James’s total number of children to 10.”

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.