In Michigan when a loved one passes without a will their estate passes through what is known as intestate succession. The estate must then be processed via probate court and Michigan’s intestate statutes is then applied (such as spousal shares MCL 700.2102).

Spousal Share.
If a loved one passes (without a will) and is survived by a spouse, the decedents other relatives (heirs) will effect what the spouse receives.
Generally:

(1) If the decedent’s descendants are also the surviving spouse’s descendants, then the first $150,000* of the estate must then pass to the spouse. Additionally, one-half of the remaining balance then passes to the spouse. The remaining heirs receive the rest.

(2) If the decedent’s descendant’s are not also the descendant’s of the spouse, then only the first $100,000* of the estate must pass to the spouse. Additionally, one-half of the remaining balance also passes to the spouse. The remaining heirs receive the rest.

(3) If there are no descendant’s but the decedent is survived by a parent, then the first $150,000* passes to the spouse. Additionally, three-fourths of the balance also passes to the spouse. The parents receive the rest.

(4) If there is no descendant’s and no parents, 100% passes to the spouse.

*MCL 700.1210 adjusts the above values by a “cost-of-living adjustment factor”; and that is published annually by the Michigan state department of treasury.

The above is one of several intestate succession rules applied in Michigan. All estate put through probate are open record and available for viewing by the public. The best approach is to have a professionally drafted will designed for your estate and planned with tools such as trusts, life insurance, and other financial services. By design, you want your loved ones to get what they deserve with the smallest tax and transfer penalties and in the most discrete and private manner.

Broadly defined, a real estate syndicate pools capital from various investors and then utilizes the capital to: acquire an income producing property; or, develop underutilized land on which an income property can be developed. 

A syndicate structure allows investors to invest in real estate venture they may be unable or unwilling to invest in individually. Generally the investor is not involved in the day-to-day management of the project. A common example of this would be the purchase of a residential apartment complex. 

Investing in a real estate syndicate requires due diligence and a careful analysis of the proposed venture; as there are no guarantees that the venture will be profitable. It is recommended that individuals seek the advice of a qualified attorney and or financial planner when evaluating a syndication offering to fully understand the merits and risks of the investment.

The organization that puts together the syndication, the syndicator generally is compensated for: locating the real estate, due diligence of the acquisition or intended development, and closing the deal. This compensation can be provided in a variety of ways including: acquisition fees – paid to the syndicator at closing; management fees –typically based on a percentage of yearly gross revenue; and, equity carve outs – permits the syndicator or retain an equity interest in the project. 

The investor can realize gains on his investment through the cash flows of the property, the appreciation of their ownership interest that will be realized upon sale, and/or a preferred return on their invested capital. 

Real estate syndication is regulated by the Federal and State government to protect the public as well as potential investors. This regulation can be very difficult to navigate as it is frequently changed, and many governmental agencies are involved in the process. Investing in a real estate syndication should only be done after a thorough investigation of the syndicator and the investment. The securities attorneys at Zamzow PLLC have the expertise and experience to counsel syndicators and investors at each step of the syndication process.

Overview.
Firmly fixed in Michigan state, Federal, and ancient law is the governments power of “eminent domain”; the power of government to take private property for public use. Through the state government’s broad power to regulate, known as the “police power”,  the public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare, land use and development is highly controlled. The fifth and fourteenth amendment (due process clauses) of the United State’s Constitution limit the governments power to deprive life, liberty, or property without due process of law. From these federal protections, and other state constitutional protections (explicit or implicit), when private property is taken by a state or federal actor “just compensation” for the property is required.

Eminent Design.
Our roadways, railways (qualified), waterways (qualified), utilities, public buildings, and some urban revitalization of blighted lands are all a product of eminent domain. It is no coincidence that interstate-highways are straight, the government balances the public good (benefit) with the individual bad (burden); if 10 farms may be spared, with little expense to the public, by designing the highway to run half a mile to the left or right of those farms, ideally, the government will choose to spare the farms. This type of taking is fairly incontestable on constitutional grounds, and lobbying is [oftentimes] unsuccessful; after all, if it isn’t in my backyard, it will be in someone else’s–one way or another–someone will be unhappy.

Private Eminent Domain.
Public Use versus Private Use; and modified to include public purpose. Occasionally, the federal government will grant money to a municipality to purchase ‘blighted’ land, lay new roads, sewers, and other public utilities, then resell the properties to private developers. This relatively new repurpose of the public use, eminent domain power, causes controversy. A government (public) is taking land owned by a private individual, and using the land to resell it to another private individual. Challenges to these governmental takings have been brought largely on two arguments: the land is not blighted, or the land is ultimately going to be transferred to a private party. These arguments generally fail.

A notable case that has centered on private takings:
(1) Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005); Which spurred several legislative actions limited the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations where the ‘true’ purpose is not merely economic of private entities.

Michigan.
A property owner in Michigan whose property has been subjected to a taking by the state is largely left with only one challenge to compensation, and that is in Michigan courts. The Michigan constitution article 10 • §2, provides for just compensation, where the government has taken from a private party.

Broadly, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been adopted, in some form, by nearly every state. It governs, by statute, most commercial transactions, from manufacturing to banking. For example (abridged for overview):

– UCC Article 2 – Sales (of Goods)
Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods. Goods are those things that are moveable at the time of sale.

– UCC Article 2A – Leases (of Goods)
This Article applies to any transaction that creates a lease. “Lease” means a transfer of the right to possession and use of goods for a term in return for consideration.

– UCC Article 3 – Negotiable Instruments (see Article 4 or 9 for controlling provisions)
This Article applies to negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money (with additional specific requirements)

– UCC Article 4 – Bank Deposits (see Article 3)

– UCC Article 4A – Funds Transfers
“Funds transfer” means the series of transactions, made for the purpose of making payment to the beneficiary of the order.

– UCC Article 5 – Letters of Credit
This article applies to letters of credit and to certain rights and obligations arising out of transactions involving letters of credit. “Letter of Credit” means a definite undertaking by an issuer to a beneficiary at the request to honor a documentary presentation by payment.

– UCC Article 6 – Bulk Transfers and Bulk Sales (Michigan – Repealed – January 4, 1999)

– UCC Article 7 – Bailments (Bill of Ladings and Documents of Title)
This article applies largely to Bailees, meaning a person that by a warehouse receipt, bill of lading, or other document of title acknowledges possession of goods and contracts to deliver them.

– UCC Article 8 – Investment Securities
This article applies to securities (and investment companies), meaning an obligation of an issuer that is represented by a security certificate in bearer or registered form, that is one of a class or series, and that (a) is traded on securities exchanges or securities markets; or (b) is a medium for investment and is a security expressly governed by this Article.

– UCC Article 9 – Secured Transactions
This article applies to transactions that creates a security interest in personal property by contract; agricultural liens; sale of accounts (payment intangibles, promissory notes, etc.); and,  consignments. With several other inclusions authorized under the UCC generally, and several other exclusions expressly removed from UCC Article 9.

Several renovations of the Michigan UCC were made July 1, 2013. Each above explanation is a severely abridged and slimmed statement; go directly to the Michigan Uniform Commercial Code (MCL 440.1101 et seq.) for a complete explanation and definition of each Article.

MCL 440.1101 (Article 1),
MCL 440.2101 (Article 2),
MCL 440.3101 (Article 3),.., etc.

In Michigan, when real property is owned by multiple owners, those owners are called co-tenants. Under this method of ownership, each co-tenant has a right to possess all of the property and no co-tenant has the right to an exclusive part of the property. This system has certain rights, privileges, and duties owed to the other co-tenants and the property, including: (1) right to rent and profits; (2) expenses associated with the property; and (3) the duty of fair dealing.

Rents.
Co-tenants out of possession of the property has a right to share in rents from third parties, including profits obtained from the collection of resources. There is a potential right from co-tenants to collect rents from agreements between the other co-tenants and lease agreements.

Expenses.
Each co-tenant, if required by reason and justice, must contribute his or her proportionate share of costs associated with the preservation of the property. A co-tenant who pays more than his or her share of the expense of pay for necessary repairs may seek contribution from co-tenants. The modern theory here is that, since the repair is necessary to maintain the quality of the property, and all co-tenants benefit from that value, that they all should pay. This also applies to Taxes owed to the governmental authority in the locality. Each co-tenant has a duty to pay his or her portion of taxes due on the entire property; generally this is irrespective of possession. Each paying co-tenant may compel the non-paying co-tenants to contribute in these expenses (including taxes and mortgages).

Fair Dealing.
Each co-tenant acting alone, is generally deemed to be acting on behalf of all co-tenants in relation to the property. Each co-tenant must act fairly in all transactions, whether in sale or adverse possession.

When choosing to own property with several other people, consider carefully the method of mutual ownership. Form an agreement with the other co-tenants if necessary, and always consult with an attorney before executing a deed with particular transfer information on it; there are potentially negative and irreversible consequences to transferring property with the wrong conveyance terms.