ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.3104 Claim against decedent; necessity of administration.
Sec. 3104.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent's estate or the decedent's successors shall not be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative. After the appointment and until distribution, a proceeding or action to enforce a claim against the estate is governed by the procedure prescribed by this article. After distribution, a creditor whose claim has not been barred may recover from the distributees as provided in section 3955 or from a former personal representative individually liable as provided in section 3956.
(2) This act does not apply to a proceeding by a secured creditor of the decedent to enforce the creditor's right to the creditor's security except as provided in part 8 of article III and part 6 of article VII.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case:
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “MCL 700.3104 provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the decedent’s successors shall not be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative.”
Nadia Maria Packard v. Paul Thomas Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, although plaintiff argues on appeal that she filed the lawsuit against Brown “in anticipation of the probate estate being opened,” this is in direct violation of MCL 700.3104(1), which states that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the…”
Mykel Alexander v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “”) While it may be the case that the trial court erred when it issued an order that allowed the filing of an amended complaint, without including a provision in the order stating that the amended complaint could not be filed until a fiduciary was reappointed, defendant did not…”
Timothy Lashbrook v. Ila Grasak (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“MCL 700.3104(1) provides in relevant part that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate .”
in Re Stuart Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“3104 provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the decedent’s successors shall not be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3104(1) — 3 cases
Nadia Maria Packard v. Paul Thomas Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Furthermore, although plaintiff argues on appeal that she filed the lawsuit against Brown “in anticipation of the probate estate being opened,” this is in direct violation of MCL 700.3104(1), which states that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate or the…”
Timothy Lashbrook v. Ila Grasak (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“MCL 700.3104(1) provides in relevant part that “a proceeding to enforce a claim against a decedent’s estate .”
Mykel Alexander v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“”) While it may be the case that the trial court erred when it issued an order that allowed the filing of an amended complaint, without including a provision in the order stating that the amended complaint could not be filed until a fiduciary was reappointed, defendant did not…”
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.