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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805 (2026)

Priority of claim payments; insufficient assets.

✓ 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


700.3805 Priority of claim payments; insufficient assets.

Sec. 3805.

    (1) If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority:

    (a) Costs and expenses of administration.

    (b) Reasonable funeral and burial expenses.

    (c) Homestead allowance.

    (d) Family allowance.

    (e) Exempt property.

    (f) Debts and taxes with priority under federal law, including, but not limited to, medical assistance payments that are subject to adjustment or recovery from an estate under section 1917 of the social security act, 42 USC 1396p.

    (g) Reasonable and necessary medical and hospital expenses of the decedent's last illness, including a compensation of persons attending the decedent.

    (h) Debts and taxes with priority under other laws of this state.

    (i) All other claims.

    (2) A preference shall not be given in the payment of a claim over another claim of the same class, and a claim due and payable is not entitled to a preference over a claim not due.

    (3) If there are insufficient assets to pay all claims in full or to satisfy homestead allowance, family allowance, and exempt property, the personal representative shall certify the amount and nature of the deficiency to the trustee of a trust described in section 7605(1) for payment by the trustee in accordance with section 7606. If the personal representative is aware of other nonprobate transfers that may be liable for claims and allowances, then, unless the will provides otherwise, the personal representative shall proceed to collect the deficiency in a manner reasonable under the circumstances so that each nonprobate transfer, including those made under a trust described in section 7605(1), bears a proportionate share or equitable share of the total burden.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 177, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2000 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 73, Imd. Eff. Sept. 30, 2007 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “ment agreement) be *349 tween the bank and the decedent in determining whether a bank, as the holder of a perfected security interest in a CD account that a decedent pledged as collateral to secure a mortgage, is entitled upon default to retain the funds in the account even…”
In Re Baldwin Trust, 733 N.W.2d 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “3703(1) [4] and MCL 700.3805(3), [5] EPIC imposes no duties on trustees to pursue nontrust assets or to use their authority for the benefit of allowed claimants.”
In re DeCoste Est., 317 Mich. App. 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “MCL 700.3805(1) governs the priority of claims and allowances and provides, in part: If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority: (a) Costs and…”
Hill v. L F Transp., Inc, 746 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Finally, Auto-Owners contends that the trial court’s order, which approved distribution of the settlement funds, violated MCL 700.3805. We reverse and remand. This appeal arises out of an August 1994 automobile accident that has been the subject of two previous appeals in this…”
in Re Klein Est., 316 Mich. App. 329 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “In January 2015, DCH filed the instant claim in the probate court estate proceeding, seeking “a judgment allowing the Department’s estate recovery claim in full” as well as an order requiring “payment according to the priority of the claims provision of MCL 700.3805.” DCH…”
Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012). “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 700.3805 and 700.7501(1), currently recodified at 700.”
Wolfe-Haddad Est. v. Oakland Cnty., 725 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “See MCL 700.3805; MCL 700.3807; MCL 700.3815.”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 25× “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 25× “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
in Re Fletcher Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “MCL 700.3805(1) governs the priority of claims and allowances and provides, in part: If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority: (a) Costs and…”
State v. Bruederle, 2012 ND 26 (N.D. 2012). “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 700.3805 and 700.7501(1), currently recodified at 700.”
in Re Lewerenz Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” MCL 700.3805 provides a hierarchy of estate property distribution, in relevant part, as follows: (1) If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority:…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(1) — 6 cases
In re DeCoste Est., 317 Mich. App. 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 700.3805(1) governs the priority of claims and allowances and provides, in part: If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority: (a) Costs and…”
In re Lundy Est., 804 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “ment agreement) be *349 tween the bank and the decedent in determining whether a bank, as the holder of a perfected security interest in a CD account that a decedent pledged as collateral to secure a mortgage, is entitled upon default to retain the funds in the account even…”
in Re Fletcher Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 700.3805(1) governs the priority of claims and allowances and provides, in part: If the applicable estate property is insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order of priority: (a) Costs and…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(1)(a) — 2 cases
In Re Wallace Howe Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
in Re Easterly Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(1)(b) — 2 cases
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(1)(f) — 4 cases
in Re Rasmer Est. (Mich. 2017).
in Re Rasmer Est. (Mich. 2017).
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(1)(i) — 3 cases
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
In Re Nothnagel Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The DHHS responded that MCL 700.3805, the proper statute governing the priority of claims for decedents’ estates, provided that appellee’s predeath legal services claim was of a lower priority than the DHHS’s federally mandated claim under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery…”
in Re Stuart Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3805(3) — 2 cases
In Re Baldwin Trust, 733 N.W.2d 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “3703(1) [4] and MCL 700.3805(3), [5] EPIC imposes no duties on trustees to pursue nontrust assets or to use their authority for the benefit of allowed claimants.”
Lawrence E. Moon Funeral Home v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2023).
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.