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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7108 (2026)

Principal place of administration.

✓ 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


700.7108 Principal place of administration.

Sec. 7108.

    (1) Without precluding other means for establishing a sufficient connection with the designated jurisdiction, terms of a trust designating the principal place of administration are valid and controlling if any of the following apply:

    (a) A trustee's principal place of business is located in or a trustee is a resident of the designated jurisdiction.

    (b) A trust director's principal place of business is located in, or a trust director is a resident of, the designated jurisdiction.

    (c) All or part of the administration occurs in the designated jurisdiction.

    (2) A trustee is under a continuing duty to administer the trust at a place appropriate to its purposes, its administration, and the interests of the qualified trust beneficiaries.

    (3) Without precluding the right of the court to order, approve, or disapprove a transfer, the trustee, in furtherance of the duty prescribed by subsection (2), may transfer the trust's principal place of administration to another state or to a jurisdiction outside of the United States.

    (4) The trustee shall notify the qualified trust beneficiaries in writing of a proposed transfer of a trust's principal place of administration not less than 63 days before initiating the transfer. The notice of proposed transfer must include all of the following:

    (a) The name of the jurisdiction to which the principal place of administration is to be transferred.

    (b) The address and telephone number at the new location at which the trustee can be contacted.

    (c) An explanation of the reasons for the proposed transfer.

    (d) The date on which the proposed transfer is anticipated to occur.

    (e) In a conspicuous manner, the date, not less than 63 days after the giving of the notice, by which a qualified trust beneficiary must notify the trustee in writing of an objection to the proposed transfer.

    (5) The authority of a trustee under this section to transfer a trust's principal place of administration without the approval of the court terminates if a qualified trust beneficiary notifies the trustee in writing of an objection to the proposed transfer on or before the date specified in the notice.

    (6) In connection with a transfer of the trust's principal place of administration, the trustee may transfer some or all of the trust property to a successor trustee designated in the terms of the trust or appointed under section 7704.

    (7) The view of an adult beneficiary must be given weight in determining the suitability of the trustee and the place of administration.

History: Add. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 664, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
Gary Olszewski v. Kathy J Erdman Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “In order to answer that question, we turn to MCL 700.7108, which provides, in relevant part as follows: (1) Without precluding other means for establishing a sufficient connection with the designated jurisdiction, terms of a trust designating the principal place of…”
In Re Clifford D Steves Separate Prop. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Similarly, appellant’s argument that the personal representative of the estate should be removed is outside the scope of the appeal in this case, which, again, is limited to the trust proceedings relevant to the fifth annual account.”
in Re John D Dospoy Revocable Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “, MCL 700.7108(4). Such exclusion of an explicit writing requirement, when that requirement is present in other statutory sections, should be construed as intentional, and this Court should not read provisions into a statute not intended by the Legislature.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7108(3) — 2 cases
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7108(4) — 4 cases
Gary Olszewski v. Kathy J Erdman Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “In order to answer that question, we turn to MCL 700.7108, which provides, in relevant part as follows: (1) Without precluding other means for establishing a sufficient connection with the designated jurisdiction, terms of a trust designating the principal place of…”
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
In Re Michael Eyde Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) Costello argues that the terms of the Trust (discussed -3- shortly, infra) allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108. MCL 700.7108 states: (1) Without precluding…”
in Re John D Dospoy Revocable Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “, MCL 700.7108(4). Such exclusion of an explicit writing requirement, when that requirement is present in other statutory sections, should be construed as intentional, and this Court should not read provisions into a statute not intended by the Legislature.”
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.