Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3614 (2026)

Special personal representative; appointment.

✓ 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


700.3614 Special personal representative; appointment.

Sec. 3614.

    A special personal representative may be appointed in any of the following circumstances:

    (a) Informally by the register on the application of an interested person if necessary to protect the estate of a decedent before the appointment of a general personal representative or if a prior appointment is terminated as provided in section 3609.

    (b) By the court on its own motion or in a formal proceeding by court order on the petition of an interested person if in either case, after notice and hearing, the court finds that the appointment is necessary to preserve the estate or to secure its proper administration, including its administration in circumstances in which a general personal representative cannot or should not act. If it appears to the court that an emergency exists, the court may order the appointment without notice.

    (c) By the court on its own motion or on petition by an interested person to supervise the disposition of the body of a decedent if section 3206(8) applies. The duties of a special personal representative appointed under this subdivision must be specified in the order of appointment and may include making arrangements with a funeral home, securing a burial plot if needed, obtaining veteran's or pauper's funding if appropriate, and determining the disposition of the body by burial or cremation. The court may waive the bond requirement under section 3603(1)(a). The court may appoint the county public administrator if the county public administrator is willing to serve. If the court determines that it will not be necessary to open an estate, the court may appoint a special fiduciary under section 1309 instead of a special personal representative to perform duties under this section.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 343, Imd. Eff. Sept. 29, 2004 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 299, Imd. Eff. July 20, 2006 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 57, Eff. June 27, 2016

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2015–2018 · leading case: in Re Douglas W Baltrip Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
in Re Douglas W Baltrip Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 18× “In a supplemental brief, petitioner stated that she bought her petition jointly with Kellie for the appointment of a special personal representative pursuant to MCL 700.3614, as they both requested that the probate court appoint one or both of them as special personal…”
Nancy J Gardner v. Potestivo & Assocs. Pc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “3307, and MCL 700.3614. Accordingly, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they had the capacity to sue in a representative capacity.”
in Re Kapp Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Specifically, while the manner in which the court ruled on the seemingly constant disputes over the decedent’s funeral arrangements is questionable,6 we do not see how the court was divested of jurisdiction over those matters by the filing of the appeal.”
in Re Warner Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “] The probate court may appoint a special personal representative if (1) it is necessary to protect the estate before the appointment of a general personal representative, or if an appointment is terminated, (2) appointment is necessary to preserve the estate or secure its…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3614(b) — 2 cases
in Re Douglas W Baltrip Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “In a supplemental brief, petitioner stated that she bought her petition jointly with Kellie for the appointment of a special personal representative pursuant to MCL 700.3614, as they both requested that the probate court appoint one or both of them as special personal…”
in Re Kapp Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Specifically, while the manner in which the court ruled on the seemingly constant disputes over the decedent’s funeral arrangements is questionable,6 we do not see how the court was divested of jurisdiction over those matters by the filing of the appeal.”
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.