ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.5407 Permissible court orders.
Sec. 5407.
(1) The court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected individual's mental and adaptive limitations and other conditions warranting the procedure. Accordingly, the court may authorize a protected individual to function without the consent or supervision of the individual's conservator in handling part of his or her money or property, including authorizing the individual to maintain an account with a financial institution. To the extent the individual is authorized to function autonomously, a person may deal with the individual as though the individual is mentally competent.
(2) The court has the following powers that may be exercised directly or through a conservator in respect to a protected individual's estate and business affairs:
(a) While a petition for a conservator's appointment or another protective order is pending and after preliminary hearing and without notice to others, the court has the power to preserve and apply property of the individual to be protected as may be required for the support of the individual or the individual's dependents.
(b) After hearing and upon determining that a basis for an appointment or other protective order exists with respect to a minor without other disability, the court has all those powers over the minor's estate and business affairs that are or may be necessary for the best interests of the minor and members of the minor's immediate family.
(c) After hearing and upon determining that a basis for an appointment or other protective order exists with respect to an individual for a reason other than minority, the court, for the benefit of the individual and members of the individual's immediate family, has all the powers over the estate and business affairs that the individual could exercise if present and not under disability, except the power to make a will. Those powers include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(i) To make gifts.
(ii) To convey or release a contingent or expectant interest in property including marital property rights and a right of survivorship incident to joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety.
(iii) To exercise or release a power held by the protected individual as personal representative, custodian for a minor, conservator, or donee of a power of appointment.
(iv) To enter into a contract.
(v) To create a revocable or irrevocable trust of estate property that may extend beyond the disability or life of the protected individual.
(vi) To exercise an option of the protected individual to purchase securities or other property.
(vii) To exercise a right to elect an option and change a beneficiary under an insurance or annuity policy and to surrender the policy for its cash value.
(viii) To exercise a right to an elective share in the estate of the individual's deceased spouse.
(ix) To renounce or disclaim an interest by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transfer.
(3) The court may exercise or direct the exercise of the following powers only if satisfied, after the notice and hearing, that it is in the protected individual's best interests and that the individual either is incapable of consenting or has consented to the proposed exercise of the power:
(a) To exercise or release a power of appointment of which the protected individual is donee.
(b) To renounce or disclaim an interest.
(c) To make a gift in trust or otherwise exceeding 20% of a year's income of the estate.
(d) To change a beneficiary under an insurance and annuity policy.
(4) A determination that a basis for a conservator's appointment or another protective order exists has no effect on the protected individual's capacity.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
In Re Conservatorship of Bittner, 879 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “A comment to MCL 700.5407 by the reporter for the EPIC drafting committee of the State Bar of Michigan provides, “Subsection (1) states a public policy that the court’s authority over an adult’s assets and financial affairs should be the least intrusive possible while still…”
in Re Conservatorship of Rhea Brody, 909 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“5407(1) ("The court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected individual's mental and…”
Vansach v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (In re Est. of Vansach), 922 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“If the prerequisites for a protective order are established by clear and convincing evidence, the standards applicable to the trial court in fashioning an order and exercising authority over the individual's property are set forth in MCL 700.5407 and MCL 700.5408. See Bittner ,…”
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as the…”
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as the…”
In Re Conservatorship of Ejs (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “Regardless of whether there was firm proof that Jonathan made the beneficiary designation for his own advantage, the probate court was authorized under MCL 700.5407(3) to change a beneficiary designation made prior to Jonathan’s time as EJS’s conservator.”
in Re Keith Norbert Schroeder (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “5407(1) states, in part, that “[t]he court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected…”
In Re Guardianship of Ronald William Layton (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “The parties proceeded under the protective order without major disputes until Bryan asserted that Ronald had leased property, which was titled in the Layton Trust, to him for 10 years under circumstances that called into question the validity of the lease.”
in Re Joseph Vansach Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“If the prerequisites for a protective order are established by clear and convincing evidence, the standards applicable to the trial court in fashioning an order and exercising authority over the individual’s property are set forth in MCL 700.5407 and MCL 700.5408. See Bittner,…”
in Re Joseph Vansach Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“If the prerequisites for a protective order are established by clear and convincing evidence, the standards applicable to the trial court in fashioning an order and exercising authority over the individual’s property are set forth in MCL 700.5407 and MCL 700.5408. See Bittner,…”
In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“MCL 700.5407(1) provides: The court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected individual’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5407(1) — 7 cases
In Re Conservatorship of Bittner, 879 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“A comment to MCL 700.5407 by the reporter for the EPIC drafting committee of the State Bar of Michigan provides, “Subsection (1) states a public policy that the court’s authority over an adult’s assets and financial affairs should be the least intrusive possible while still…”
in Re Conservatorship of Rhea Brody, 909 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“5407(1) ("The court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected individual's mental and…”
in Re Keith Norbert Schroeder (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“5407(1) states, in part, that “[t]he court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected…”
In Re Conservatorship of Dlw (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“MCL 700.5407(1) provides: The court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected individual’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5407(2) — 1 case
in Re Keith Norbert Schroeder (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“5407(1) states, in part, that “[t]he court shall exercise the authority conferred in this part to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of a protected individual and shall make protective orders only to the extent necessitated by the protected…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5407(2)(c) — 1 case
In Re Guardianship of Ronald William Layton (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“The parties proceeded under the protective order without major disputes until Bryan asserted that Ronald had leased property, which was titled in the Layton Trust, to him for 10 years under circumstances that called into question the validity of the lease.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5407(3) — 3 cases
In Re Conservatorship of Ejs (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“Regardless of whether there was firm proof that Jonathan made the beneficiary designation for his own advantage, the probate court was authorized under MCL 700.5407(3) to change a beneficiary designation made prior to Jonathan’s time as EJS’s conservator.”
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as the…”
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5407(3)(a) — 2 cases
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as the…”
in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“However, respondent cannot demonstrate to this Court where in the statute the probate court was restrained from finding that the same underlying condition cannot form the basis for the probate court’s determination that a person cannot manage their affairs as well as 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.