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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313 (2026)

Guardian; qualifications.

✓ 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


700.5313 Guardian; qualifications.

Sec. 5313.

    (1) The court may appoint a competent person as guardian of a legally incapacitated individual. The court shall not appoint as a guardian an agency, public or private, that financially benefits from directly providing housing, medical, mental health, or social services to the legally incapacitated individual. If the court determines that the ward's property needs protection, the court shall order the guardian to furnish a bond or shall include restrictions in the letters of guardianship as necessary to protect the property.

    (2) In appointing a guardian under this section, the court shall appoint a person, if suitable and willing to serve, in the following order of priority:

    (a) A person previously appointed, qualified, and serving in good standing as guardian for the legally incapacitated individual in this state or another state.

    (b) A person the individual subject to the petition chooses to serve as guardian.

    (c) A person nominated as guardian in a durable power of attorney or other writing by the individual subject to the petition.

    (d) A person named by the individual as a patient advocate or attorney in fact in a durable power of attorney.

    (e) A person appointed by a parent or spouse of a legally incapacitated individual by will or other writing under section 5301.

    (3) If there is no person chosen, nominated, or named under subsection (2), or if none of the persons listed in subsection (2) are suitable or willing to serve, the court may appoint as a guardian an individual who is related to the individual who is the subject of the petition in the following order of preference:

    (a) The legally incapacitated individual's spouse. This subdivision is considered to include a person nominated by will or other writing signed by a deceased spouse.

    (b) An adult child of the legally incapacitated individual.

    (c) A parent of the legally incapacitated individual. This subdivision is considered to include a person nominated by will or other writing signed by a deceased parent.

    (d) A relative of the legally incapacitated individual with whom the individual has resided for more than 6 months before the filing of the petition.

    (e) A person nominated by a person who is caring for the legally incapacitated individual or paying benefits to the legally incapacitated individual.

    (4) If none of the persons as designated or listed in subsection (2) or (3) are suitable or willing to serve, the court may appoint any competent person who is suitable and willing to serve, including a professional guardian as provided in section 5106.

    

    

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 54, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 312, Eff. Jan. 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 463, Eff. June 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 545, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 1, Imd. Eff. Feb. 21, 2024

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler, 922 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “MCL 700.5313 ; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 896 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio 2008). “2d 1003, at ¶ 25 , where any competent person can be a guardian, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 700.5313. {¶ 24} One of the problems highlighted by this case is the incentive an Ohio resident has to move her parent to Ohio to prevent her non-Ohio-resident sibling from being eligible to…”
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
in Re Guardianship of David P Vanpoppelen (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “] MCL 700.5313 establishes priority for the appointment of a guardian as follows: (1) The court may appoint a competent person as guardian of a legally incapacitated individual.”
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “MCL 700.5313; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
In Re Guardianship of Ams (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “] In Gerstler Guardianship, 324 Mich App at 497 , this Court held that the probate court erred by appointing a professional guardian without first finding that the individual with priority under MCL 700.5313 was not competent, suitable, and willing to serve as a guardian.”
In Re Guardianship of Cy (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “Moreover, while a legally protected person has the right to select who will serve as a fiduciary, the Legislature has decreed that the right is restricted to the selection procedure under MCL 700.5313, and whether the requested person is “suitable and willing to serve[.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
In Re Guardianship of Hih (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “MCL 700.5313(2). If no other competent, suitable, or willing person is available to serve as guardian pursuant to MCL 700.”
In Re Guardianship of Mary Ann Malloy (Mich. 2024). · cites it 3× “Relevant for our purposes, a professional guardian can be appointed to care for either an incapacitated individual or a minor, see MCL 700.5313; MCL 700.5106(1) and (2), and the provision governing the delegation of guardianship powers—MCL 700.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(1) — 4 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
In Re Guardianship of Tyler J Newland (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re Guardianship of Les (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2) — 15 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler, 922 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 700.5313 ; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
In Re Guardianship of Hih (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “MCL 700.5313(2). If no other competent, suitable, or willing person is available to serve as guardian pursuant to MCL 700.”
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 700.5313; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2)(A) — 1 case
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2)(a) — 2 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
In Re Guardianship of Ams (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] In Gerstler Guardianship, 324 Mich App at 497 , this Court held that the probate court erred by appointing a professional guardian without first finding that the individual with priority under MCL 700.5313 was not competent, suitable, and willing to serve as a guardian.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2)(b) — 5 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
In Re Guardianship of Cy (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Moreover, while a legally protected person has the right to select who will serve as a fiduciary, the Legislature has decreed that the right is restricted to the selection procedure under MCL 700.5313, and whether the requested person is “suitable and willing to serve[.”
in Re Guardianship of David P Vanpoppelen (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 700.5313 establishes priority for the appointment of a guardian as follows: (1) The court may appoint a competent person as guardian of a legally incapacitated individual.”
In Re Guardianship of Hih (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “MCL 700.5313(2). If no other competent, suitable, or willing person is available to serve as guardian pursuant to MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2)(c) — 1 case
In Re Guardianship of Va (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(2)(d) — 2 cases
in Re Guardianship of David P Vanpoppelen (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 700.5313 establishes priority for the appointment of a guardian as follows: (1) The court may appoint a competent person as guardian of a legally incapacitated individual.”
In Re Guardianship of Tyler J Newland (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(3) — 5 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re the Guardianship of Dorothy Redd (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While MCL 700.5313 explicitly states that a person who is “suitable and willing” can be appointed a guardian in certain circumstances, the section does not similarly state that the same standard applies to remove a person as guardian.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
In Re Guardianship of Hih (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “MCL 700.5313(2). If no other competent, suitable, or willing person is available to serve as guardian pursuant to MCL 700.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(3)(a) — 1 case
In Re Guardianship of Ams (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] In Gerstler Guardianship, 324 Mich App at 497 , this Court held that the probate court erred by appointing a professional guardian without first finding that the individual with priority under MCL 700.5313 was not competent, suitable, and willing to serve as a guardian.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(3)(b) — 5 cases
in Re Guardianship of David P Vanpoppelen (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 700.5313 establishes priority for the appointment of a guardian as follows: (1) The court may appoint a competent person as guardian of a legally incapacitated individual.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
in Re Guardianship of Milan Kapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “APPOINTMENT OF FRASER Mila and Bonnie first contend that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Fraser as successor guardian and conservator without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether either Mila or Bonnie is suitable to serve in those roles.”
In Re Conservatorship of Dpv (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re Guardianship of Ams (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] In Gerstler Guardianship, 324 Mich App at 497 , this Court held that the probate court erred by appointing a professional guardian without first finding that the individual with priority under MCL 700.5313 was not competent, suitable, and willing to serve as a guardian.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5313(4) — 9 cases
Redd v. Carney (In re Redd), 909 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Returning to the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated individual under MCL 700.5313, while that section does not directly state that the same standard applies to removal, it does provide some guidance on the matter.”
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler, 922 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 700.5313 ; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
In Re Guardianship of Cy (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Moreover, while a legally protected person has the right to select who will serve as a fiduciary, the Legislature has decreed that the right is restricted to the selection procedure under MCL 700.5313, and whether the requested person is “suitable and willing to serve[.”
In Re Guardianship of Nmr (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
in Re guardianship/conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 700.5313; MCL 700.5409. Angelee was at the top of the list, and no evidence suggests that she was incompetent to serve or otherwise unsuitable for the position.”
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.