Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 700 / Act 386 of 1998
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3608 (2026)

Termination of appointment generally.

✓ 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


700.3608 Termination of appointment generally.

Sec. 3608.

    Termination of appointment of a personal representative occurs as provided in sections 3609 to 3612. Termination ends the right and power pertaining to the office of personal representative as conferred by this act or a will, except that a personal representative, at any time before distribution or until restrained or enjoined by court order, may perform an act necessary to protect the estate and may deliver property to a successor personal representative. Termination does not discharge a personal representative from liability for a transaction or omission occurring before termination, or relieve the personal representative of the duty to preserve property subject to the personal representative's control, and to account for and deliver that property. Termination does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the personal representative, but does terminate the personal representative's authority to represent the estate in a pending or future proceeding.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: In Re Piippo Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Piippo Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “As set forth at MCL 700.3608, although appellant was terminated as personal representative of the estate, “[t]ermination does not discharge a personal representative from liability for a transaction or omission occurring before termination .”
Mykel Alexander v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “4 Ironically, although Daniel’s argument was that plaintiff could not sue a deceased person, pursuant to MCL 700.3608, it appears that Daniel did not actually have standing to file a motion for summary disposition on behalf of the deceased person, in March of 2023, because the…”
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.