Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4924 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Emily Dievendorf http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Judiciary
Complete to 12-10-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4924 would add Chapter 34 (Partition of Heirs Property) to the Revised Judicature
Act. Chapter 34 could also be called the “Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act.”
The bill would amend Chapter 33 (Partition) 1 of the act to provide that the new Chapter 34
supplements that chapter. If an action is governed by Chapter 34, then the provisions of Chapter
33 that are inconsistent with Chapter 34 would be superseded by Chapter 34. The ability of
persons holding lands as tenants in common to have those lands partitioned under Chapter 33
would be subject to Chapter 34. In an action to partition real property under Chapter 33, the
court would have to determine whether the property is heirs property. Property determined by
the court to be heirs property would have to be partitioned under Chapter 34 unless all of the
cotenants agree otherwise in a record.
Heirs property would mean real property held in tenancy in common that satisfies all
of the following requirements when an action is filed to partition real property:
• There is no agreement in a record binding all the cotenants that governs the
partition of the property.
• One or more of the cotenants acquired title from a living or deceased relative.
• Any of the following apply:
o Twenty percent or more of the interests are held by cotenants who are
relatives.
o Twenty percent or more of the interests are held by an individual who
acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased.
o Twenty percent or more of the cotenants are relatives.
Record would mean information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored
in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
Relative would mean an ascendant, descendant, or collateral or an individual
otherwise related to another individual by blood, marriage, adoption, or another
Michigan law.
Ascendant would mean an individual who precedes another individual in lineage, in
the direct line of ascent from the other individual.
Descendant would mean an individual who follows another individual in lineage, in
the direct line of descent from the other individual.
1
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-236-1961-33.pdf
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
 Collateral would mean an individual who is related to another individual under
Michigan’s law of intestate succession 2 but is not the other individual’s ascendant or
descendant.
Action to partition real property
Chapter 34 would not limit or affect the method by which service of a complaint may be made
in an action to partition real property.
If the plaintiff in an action to partition real property seeks notice by publication and the court
determines that the property may be heirs property, the plaintiff, no later than 10 days after the
court’s determination, would have to post a conspicuous sign on the property that is the subject
of the action and would have to maintain the sign while the action is pending. The sign would
have to state that the action has commenced and identify the name and address of the court and
the common designation by which the property is known. The court also could require the
plaintiff to publish on the sign the name of the plaintiff and the known defendants.
If the court appoints commissioners under Chapter 33 (which Chapter 34 would supersede),
each commissioner would have to be disinterested and impartial and could not be a party to or
participant in the action to partition real property.
Determination of value
If the court determines that the property that is the subject of an action to partition real property
is heirs property, the court would have to determine the fair market value of the property by
ordering an appraisal. However, if all cotenants have agreed to the value of the property or to
another method of valuation, the court would have to adopt that value or the value produced
by the agreed method of valuation. In addition, if the court determines that the cost of an
appraisal outweighs its evidentiary value, the court, after an evidentiary hearing, would have
to determine the fair market value of the property and send notice of the value to the parties.
If ordering an appraisal, the court would have to appoint a disinterested real estate appraiser
licensed in Michigan to determine the fair market value of the property assuming sole
ownership of the fee simple estate. Upon completion of the appraisal, the appraiser would have
to file a sworn or verified appraisal with the court. No later than 10 days after the filing, the
court would have to send each party with a known address a notice stating all of the following:
• The appraised fair market value of the property.
• That the appraisal is available at the clerk’s office.
• That a party may file with the court an objection to the appraisal, stating the grounds
for the objection, not later than 30 days after the date the notice was sent.
The court would have to conduct a hearing to determine the fair market value of the property
no sooner than 30 days after a copy of the notice of the appraisal is sent as described above,
regardless of whether an objection to the appraisal is filed. In addition to the court-ordered
appraisal, the court could consider any other evidence of fair-market value assuming sole
ownership of the fee simple estate that is offered by a party.
2
This appears to refer to Part 1 (Intestate Succession) of Article II (Intestacy, Wills, and Donative Transfers) of the
Estates and Protected Individuals Code. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-386-1998-II-1.pdf
House Fiscal Agency HB 4924 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 2 of 7
 After the hearing, but before considering the merits of the action to partition real property, the
court would have to determine the fair market value of the property and send notice of the value
to the parties.
Partition by sale
If a cotenant requests partition by sale, the court, after determining the value of the property,
would have to send notice to the parties that any cotenant (except one that requested partition
by sale) may buy all the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by sale.
Partition by sale would mean a court-ordered sale of the entire heirs property, whether
by auction, sealed bids, or open-market sale conducted as described below.
No later than 45 days after the notice is sent, a cotenant (except one that requested partition by
sale) could give notice to the court that they elect to buy all the interests of the cotenants that
requested partition by sale. The purchase price for each of the interests of a cotenant that
requested partition by sale would be the value of the entire parcel multiplied by the cotenant’s
fractional ownership of the entire parcel. After the expiration of the 45-day period, the
following would apply:
• If only one cotenant elects to buy all the interests of the cotenants that requested
partition by sale, the court would have to notify all the parties of that fact.
• If more than one cotenant elects to buy all the interests of the cotenants that requested
partition by sale, the court would have to allocate the right to buy those interests among
the electing cotenants based on each electing cotenant’s existing fractional ownership
of the entire parcel divided by the total existing fractional ownership of all cotenants
electing to buy and send notice to all the parties of that fact and of the price to be paid
by each electing cotenant.
• If no cotenant elects to buy all the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by
sale, the court would have to send notice to all the parties of that fact and resolve the
action to partition real property as described below under “Partition in kind.”
If one or more than one cotenant elects to buy the interests of cotenants requesting partition by
sale, the court would have to set a date by which electing cotenants must pay their apportioned
price to the court. The date could not be sooner than 60 days after the date the applicable notice
of the election to buy was sent. After this date, all of the following would apply:
• If all electing cotenants pay their apportioned price on time, the court would have to
issue an order reallocating all the interests of the cotenants and disburse the amounts
held by the court to the persons entitled to them.
• If at least one but not all of the electing cotenants pay their apportioned price on
time, the court, on motion, would have to give notice to the electing cotenants that paid
the apportioned price of the interest remaining and the price for all the interest.
• If no electing cotenant pays their apportioned price on time, the court would have to
resolve the action to partition real property as described below under “Partition in kind”
as if the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by sale were not purchased.
No later than 20 days after the court sends notice that at least one electing cotenant has paid
their apportioned price on time, but not all of the electing cotenants have done so, any cotenant
that paid their apportioned price could purchase all of the remaining interest by paying to the
House Fiscal Agency HB 4924 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 3 of 7
 court the entire price for the remaining interest. After this 20-day period, the following would
apply:
• If only one cotenant pays the entire price for the remaining interest, the court would
have to issue an order reallocating the remaining interest to that cotenant. The court
would have to promptly issue an order reallocating the interests of all of the cotenants
and disburse the amounts held by the court to the persons entitled to them.
• If more than one cotenant pays the entire price for the remaining interest, the court
would have to reapportion the remaining interest among the paying cotenants (based
on each paying the cotenant’s original fractional ownership of the entire parcel divided
by the total original fractional ownership of all cotenants that paid the entire price for
the remaining interest). The court would have to promptly issue an order reallocating
all of the cotenants’ interests, disburse the amounts held by the court to the persons
entitled to them, and promptly refund any excess payment held by the court.
• If no cotenant pays the entire price for the remaining interest, the court would have to
resolve the action to partition real property as described below under “Partition in kind”
as if the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by sale were not purchased.
Not later than 45 days after the court sends initial notice as described above (of the ability to
buy the interests of the cotenants that requested partition by sale), a cotenant entitled to buy an
interest could request that the court authorize, as part of the pending action, the sale of the
interests of cotenants that were named as defendants and served with the complaint but that did
not appear in the action. The court, after a hearing, could deny such a request or authorize the
requested additional sale on terms the court determines are fair and reasonable, subject to the
following limitations:
• A sale authorized under these provisions could occur only after the purchase prices for
all interests subject to sale as described under “Partition by sale” have been paid to the
court and those interests have been reallocated among the cotenants as described above.
• The purchase price for the interest of a cotenant that did not appear would have to be
based on the court’s determination of value as described above under “Determination
of value.”
Determination of value would mean a court order determining the fair market value of
heirs property as described under either “Determination of value” or “Sale of heirs
property” or adopting the valuation of the property agreed to by all cotenants.
Partition in kind
If all the interests of all cotenants that requested partition by sale are not purchased by other
cotenants as described above, or if after conclusion of the buyout a cotenant remains that has
requested partition in kind, the court would have to order partition in kind unless, after
consideration of factors described below, the court finds that partition in kind will result in
great prejudice to the cotenants as a group. In considering whether to order partition in kind,
the court would have to approve a request by two or more parties to have the requesting parties’
individual interests aggregated.
Partition in kind would mean the division of heirs property into physically distinct and
separately titled parcels.
House Fiscal Agency HB 4924 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 4 of 7
 If the court does not order partition in kind, it would have to order partition by sale as described
under “Sale of heirs property” or, if no cotenant requested partition by sale, dismiss the action.
If the court orders partition in kind, the court could require that one or more cotenants pay one
or more other cotenants so that the payments, taken together with the value of the in-kind
distributions to the cotenants, will make the partition in kind just and proportionate in value to
the fractional interests held.
If the court orders partition in kind, the court would have to allocate to the cotenants who are
unknown, cannot be located, or are the subject of a default judgment, if the cotenant’s interests
were not represented as described under “Partition by sale,” a part of the property representing
the combined interests of these cotenants as determined by the court, and this part of the
property would have to remain undivided.
In determining whether partition in kind would result in great prejudice to the cotenants as a
group, the court would have to consider all of the following factors and circumstances:
• Whether it is practicable to divide the heirs property among the cotenants.
• Whether partition in kind would apportion the property in a way that the aggregate fair
market value of the parcels resulting from the division would be materially less than
the value of the property if it were sold as a whole, taking into account the condition
under which a court-ordered sale would likely occur.
• Evidence of the collective duration of ownership or possession of the property by a
cotenant and one or more predecessors in title or predecessors in possession to the
cotenant who are or were relatives of the cotenant or each other.
• A cotenant’s sentimental attachment to the property, including any attachment arising
because the property has ancestral or other unique or special value to the cotenant.
• The lawful use being made of the property by a cotenant and the degree to which the
cotenant would be harmed if they could not continue the same use of the property.
• The degree to which the cotenants have contributed their pro rata share of the property
taxes, insurance, and other expenses associated with maintaining ownership of the
property or have contributed to the physical improvement, maintenance, or upkeep of
the property.
• Any other relevant factor.
The court could not consider any one factor above to be dispositive without weighing the
totality of all relevant factors and circumstances.
Sale of heirs property
If the court orders a sale of heirs property, the sale would have to be an open-market sale unless
the court finds that a sale by sealed bids or an auction would be more economically
advantageous and in the best interest of the cotenants as a group.
If the court orders an open-market sale and the parties agree, not later than 10 days after the
entry of the order, on a real estate broker licensed in Michigan to offer the property for sale,
the court would have to appoint the real estate broker and e