ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.7111 Nonjudicial settlement agreement.
Sec. 7111.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), interested persons may enter into a binding nonjudicial settlement agreement with respect to any matter involving a trust.
(2) A nonjudicial settlement agreement is valid only to the extent it does not violate a material purpose of the trust and includes terms and conditions that could be properly approved by the court under this article or other applicable law. A nonjudicial settlement agreement shall not be used to accomplish the termination or modification of the trust.
(3) Matters that may be resolved by a nonjudicial settlement agreement include any of the following:
(a) The interpretation or construction of the terms of the trust.
(b) The approval of a trustee's report or accounting.
(c) Direction to a trustee to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act or to grant to or to withhold from a trustee any power.
(d) The resignation or appointment of a trustee and the determination of a trustee's compensation.
(e) Transfer of a trust's principal place of administration.
(f) Liability of a trustee for an action relating to the trust.
(4) Any interested person or trustee may request the court to approve or disapprove a nonjudicial settlement agreement. On a determination that the representation as provided in part 3 was adequate, that the agreement does not violate a material purpose of the trust, and that the agreement contains terms and conditions the court could have properly approved, the court shall enter an order approving the agreement.
(5) As used in this section, "interested persons" means persons whose consent would be required in order to achieve a binding settlement were the settlement to be approved by the court.
History: Add. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case:
In re Draves Trust, 828 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
In re Draves Trust, 828 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 13× “Because MCL 700.7111 has no application to the facts of this case, we conclude that the probate court erred by ordering that the Cedar Rest Resort be sold in contravention of the parties’ settlement agreement.”
In Re Herbert Irrevocable Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 10× “The court held that the agreement was invalid under MCL 700.7111 and MCL 700.7412 because the agreement was contrary to the settlor’s intent, violated the material purpose of the trust, and was based on a mutual mistake of fact.”
In Re Walter Sparling Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 6× “The cotrustees and Mary asked the probate court to approve the settlement agreement under MCL 700.7111, arguing that the agreement resolved a liability to Mary on favorable terms and respected Walter’s intent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7111(2) — 2 cases
In re Draves Trust, 828 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Because MCL 700.7111 has no application to the facts of this case, we conclude that the probate court erred by ordering that the Cedar Rest Resort be sold in contravention of the parties’ settlement agreement.”
In Re Herbert Irrevocable Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“The court held that the agreement was invalid under MCL 700.7111 and MCL 700.7412 because the agreement was contrary to the settlor’s intent, violated the material purpose of the trust, and was based on a mutual mistake of fact.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7111(3) — 1 case
In Re Walter Sparling Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“The cotrustees and Mary asked the probate court to approve the settlement agreement under MCL 700.7111, arguing that the agreement resolved a liability to Mary on favorable terms and respected Walter’s intent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7111(4) — 1 case
In Re Walter Sparling Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“The cotrustees and Mary asked the probate court to approve the settlement agreement under MCL 700.7111, arguing that the agreement resolved a liability to Mary on favorable terms and respected Walter’s intent.”
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.