Auto-Owners Insurance v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc.
301 Mich. App. 515
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Independent Bank made a $199,547.87 commercial loan to Hammel Associates, LLC on March 16, 2009; Norbert Boes and James D. Lee (by attorney-in-fact David Wood) signed the promissory note; Lee and his revocable living trust signed guaranties.
- Lee died May 25, 2009; Wood (as attorney) published a notice stating "there is no probate estate" and sent notices identifying himself as successor trustee.
- Independent Bank filed a Statement and Proof of Claim (Aug 11, 2009) asserting claims against both Lee’s estate and the trust for the guaranteed debt.
- Wood mailed a Notice of Disallowance on Jan 15, 2010 that on its face referred only to the "Estate of James Davis Lee, Deceased" and did not identify the disallowance as by the trust or trustee.
- Independent Bank sued the trust (and others) Sept 1, 2010. The trust moved for summary disposition arguing the claim was time-barred because a trustee’s disallowance triggers a 63‑day limitation to sue; the trial court granted the trust’s motion and dismissed Independent Bank’s claim against the trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a notice of disallowance that names only the decedent’s estate but was sent by counsel who was trustee triggers the 63‑day limitations period against the trust | Independent Bank: the disallowance refers only to the estate, not the trust, so it did not trigger the 63‑day period as to the trust | Trust: Independent Bank knew no estate was opened and Wood acted as trustee, so the disallowance should be treated as by the trust and trigger the 63‑day bar | Court held: disallowance did not identify the trust; statute requires a trustee’s disallowance to trigger the 63‑day bar, so claim against trust was not time‑barred — trial court erred and case remanded |
| Whether presentation to the estate can suffice to preserve or bar claims against the trust (and vice versa) | Independent Bank: its claim preserved liability against both estate and trust; disallowance addressed only the estate | Trust: presentation and subsequent disallowance operated to bar the claim against the trust | Court held: statutes permit presentation against the estate to assert liability against a trust in limited circumstances, but statutes do not treat an estate disallowance as automatically disallowing a claim by the trust; separate identification is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Boonsiri, 290 Mich. App. 34 (standard of review and MCR 2.116(C)(7))
- DiPonio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co., Inc., 246 Mich. App. 43 (summary disposition review principles)
- Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp., 471 Mich. 540 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Hopkins v. Duncan Twp., 294 Mich. App. 401 (statutory construction; effect of unambiguous language)
- Green v. Ziegelman, 282 Mich. App. 292 (reading provisions as a whole)
- In re MKK, 286 Mich. App. 546 (legislative awareness in statutory drafting)
- Carson City Hosp. v. Dep’t of Community Health, 253 Mich. App. 444 (presumption about legislative intent in use or omission of language)