Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3505 (2026)

Supervised administration; interim orders; partial distribution or other relief.

✓ 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


700.3505 Supervised administration; interim orders; partial distribution or other relief.

Sec. 3505.

    Unless otherwise ordered by the court, supervised administration is terminated by an order in accordance with time restrictions, notices, and contents of orders prescribed for proceedings under section 3952. The court may issue an interim order approving or directing a partial distribution or granting other relief at any time during the pendency of a supervised administration on the petition of the personal representative or an interested person.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 54, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “However, on appeal, the only issue addressed by this Court relative to the GAL fee was whether the trial court could properly order the GAL to be compensated if the GAL had failed to fulfill his statutory obligations under MCL 700.3505(1). Id. at 8. This Court ruled that the GAL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3505(1) — 1 case
In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, on appeal, the only issue addressed by this Court relative to the GAL fee was whether the trial court could properly order the GAL to be compensated if the GAL had failed to fulfill his statutory obligations under MCL 700.3505(1). Id. at 8. This Court ruled that the GAL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3505(2) — 1 case
In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “However, on appeal, the only issue addressed by this Court relative to the GAL fee was whether the trial court could properly order the GAL to be compensated if the GAL had failed to fulfill his statutory obligations under MCL 700.3505(1). Id. at 8. This Court ruled that the GAL…”
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.