Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605 (2026)

Liability of trust for expenses, claims, and allowances.

✓ 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


700.7605 Liability of trust for expenses, claims, and allowances.

Sec. 7605.

    (1) The property of a trust over which the settlor has the right without regard to the settlor's mental capacity, at his or her death, either alone or in conjunction with another person, to revoke the trust and revest principal in himself or herself is subject to all of the following, but only to the extent that the settlor's property subject to probate administration is insufficient to satisfy the following expenses, claims, and allowances:

    (a) The administration expenses of the settlor's estate.

    (b) An enforceable and timely presented claim of a creditor of the settlor, including a claim for the settlor's funeral and burial expenses.

    (c) Homestead, family, and exempt property allowances.

    (2) A trust established as part of, and all payments from, an employee annuity described in section 403 of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 403, an individual retirement account described in section 408 of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 408, a Keogh, or HR-10, plan, or a retirement or other plan that is qualified under section 401 of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 401, shall not be considered to be a trust described in subsection (1).

    (3) This section does not impair a right that an individual has under a qualified domestic relations order as that term is defined in section 414(p) of the internal revenue code, 26 USC 414.

    (4) For purposes of this section, property held or received by a trust to the extent that the property would not have been subject to a claim against the settlor's estate if it had been paid directly to a trust created under the settlor's will or other than to the settlor's estate, or property received from a trust other than a trust described in this section, shall not be considered trust property available for the payment of the administration expenses, a claim against the settlor's estate, or an allowance described in subsection (1).

History: Add. 2009, Act 46, Eff. Apr. 1, 2010

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012).
Wicklund v. Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012). · cites it 3× “Laws, which is currently recodified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605 (1) with minor changes not relevant to this case, dealt with revocable trust property available for payment of certain expenses, allowances, and claims and provided: (1) The property of a trust over which the…”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc., 838 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “3804], and such a presentation is sufficient to assert liability against a trust described in [MCL 700.7605(1)] without an additional presentation of the claim against the trustee.”
In Re Jennifer L Fowler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “Resolution of this issue turns on the probate court’s interpretation and application of MCL 700.7605. As explained in Hopkins v Duncan Twp, 294 Mich App 401, 410 ; 812 NW2d 27 (2011): The goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent.”
In Re Edward & Elaine Jaye Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “While we acknowledge that MCL 700.7605 is not a model of clarity, that statute does not apply to all claims against a settlor of a revocable trust, such as Elaine Jaye, regardless of whether the settlor is alive or deceased.”
State v. Bruederle, 2012 ND 26 (N.D. 2012). · cites it 3× “Laws, which is currently recodified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605 (1) with minor changes not relevant to this case, dealt with revocable trust property available for payment of certain expenses, allowances, and claims and provided: (1) The property of a trust over which the…”
In Re Vivian Stolaruk Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “” MCL 700.7605(1) and (4) provide: (1) The property of a trust over which the settlor has the right without regard to the settlor’s mental capacity, at his or her death, either alone or in conjunction with another person, to revoke the trust and revest principal in himself or…”
Est. of Evelyn Ragsdale v. Katie Bishop (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See MCL 700.7605(1). Evelyn’s SelecTrust Agreement recognized the obligation and extended it to also include unfunded bequests.”
in Re John Markoul Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Petitioner cites MCL 700.7605(1) and MCL 700.7606(1) for the proposition -3- that respondent was required to submit a formal claim for her exempt property allowance within four months of decedent’s death.”
In Re Wallace Howe Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 700.7605 provides: (1) The property of a trust over which the settlor has the right without regard to the settlor’s mental capacity, at his or her death, either alone or in conjunction with another person, to revoke the trust and revest principal in himself or herself is…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605(1) — 6 cases
Auto-Owners Ins. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc., 838 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “3804], and such a presentation is sufficient to assert liability against a trust described in [MCL 700.7605(1)] without an additional presentation of the claim against the trustee.”
In Re Jennifer L Fowler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Resolution of this issue turns on the probate court’s interpretation and application of MCL 700.7605. As explained in Hopkins v Duncan Twp, 294 Mich App 401, 410 ; 812 NW2d 27 (2011): The goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent.”
In Re Edward & Elaine Jaye Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “While we acknowledge that MCL 700.7605 is not a model of clarity, that statute does not apply to all claims against a settlor of a revocable trust, such as Elaine Jaye, regardless of whether the settlor is alive or deceased.”
Est. of Evelyn Ragsdale v. Katie Bishop (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “See MCL 700.7605(1). Evelyn’s SelecTrust Agreement recognized the obligation and extended it to also include unfunded bequests.”
In Re Vivian Stolaruk Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” MCL 700.7605(1) and (4) provide: (1) The property of a trust over which the settlor has the right without regard to the settlor’s mental capacity, at his or her death, either alone or in conjunction with another person, to revoke the trust and revest principal in himself or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re Edward & Elaine Jaye Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “While we acknowledge that MCL 700.7605 is not a model of clarity, that statute does not apply to all claims against a settlor of a revocable trust, such as Elaine Jaye, regardless of whether the settlor is alive or deceased.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605(1)(b) — 1 case
In Re Edward & Elaine Jaye Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “While we acknowledge that MCL 700.7605 is not a model of clarity, that statute does not apply to all claims against a settlor of a revocable trust, such as Elaine Jaye, regardless of whether the settlor is alive or deceased.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605(2) — 1 case
In Re Jennifer L Fowler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Resolution of this issue turns on the probate court’s interpretation and application of MCL 700.7605. As explained in Hopkins v Duncan Twp, 294 Mich App 401, 410 ; 812 NW2d 27 (2011): The goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.7605(4) — 2 cases
In Re Vivian Stolaruk Living Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” MCL 700.7605(1) and (4) provide: (1) The property of a trust over which the settlor has the right without regard to the settlor’s mental capacity, at his or her death, either alone or in conjunction with another person, to revoke the trust and revest principal in himself or…”
In Re Jennifer L Fowler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Resolution of this issue turns on the probate court’s interpretation and application of MCL 700.7605. As explained in Hopkins v Duncan Twp, 294 Mich App 401, 410 ; 812 NW2d 27 (2011): The goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’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.