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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.3815 (2026)

Effect of administration in more than one state.

✓ 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


700.3815 Effect of administration in more than one state.

Sec. 3815.

    (1) Estate property being administered in this state is subject to a claim, allowance, or charge existing or established against the personal representative wherever appointed.

    (2) If the estate, either in this state or as a whole, is insufficient to cover all family exemptions and allowances determined by the law of the decedent's domicile, prior charges, and claims, after satisfaction of the exemptions, allowances, and charges, each claimant whose claim has been allowed, either in this state or elsewhere in administrations of which the personal representative is aware, is entitled to receive payment of an equal proportion of the claim. If a preference or security in regard to a claim is allowed in another jurisdiction but not in this state, the benefited creditor shall receive dividends from property located in this state only upon the balance of the claim after deducting the amount of the benefit.

    (3) If the family exemptions, allowances, prior charges, and claims of the entire estate exceed the total value of the portions of the estate being administered in separate states and if this state is not the state of the decedent's last domicile, a claim allowed in this state shall be paid from property located in this state if that property is adequate for the purpose, and after that payment, the balance of that property shall be transferred to the domiciliary personal representative. If local property located in this state is not sufficient to pay all claims allowed in this state, that property shall be marshaled so that each claim allowed in this state shall be paid its proportion as far as possible, after taking into account all dividends on claims allowed in this state from property in other jurisdictions.

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

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2017 · 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). “3801 through MCL 700.3815. Part 6 of article VII is found at MCL 700.”
Wolfe-Haddad Est. v. Oakland Cnty., 725 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3807; MCL 700.3815. 6 We further disagree with plaintiffs contention that the requirement that the personal representative prepare an inventory that lists both the fair market value of all assets and the type and amount of any encumbrance that may exist with reference to each…”
Michael Pierce v. Partners for Payment Relief De III LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “And while MCL 700.3815 precludes creditors from issuing an “execution” or “levy” against an estate’s property, it exempts mortgages from the ban.”
Michael Pierce v. Partners for Payment Relief De III LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “And while MCL 700.3815 precludes creditors from issuing an “execution” or “levy” against an estate’s property, it exempts mortgages from the ban.”
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.