in Re Attia Estate
317 Mich. App. 705
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent died September 11, 2014; had executed a 1986 will and codicils in 2009 and 2013.
- Appellee Mayssa Attia filed to probate the 1986 will and codicils and was appointed personal representative.
- Appellant Mervat Hassan alleged the decedent directed his attorney to draft a new will on the day he died and sought to admit an unsigned, undated September 11, 2014 draft will to probate.
- Appellant relied on MCL 700.2503’s “savings” provision, arguing it permits admission of an unsigned document as a will if clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent intended it as a will.
- The probate court granted summary disposition for appellee, holding Michigan law requires a signature and that MCL 700.2503 addresses only improperly executed (but signed) documents.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling MCL 700.2503 permits admission of an unsigned document as a will if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence the decedent intended it as a will, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 700.2503 allows admission of an unsigned document as a will | Hassan: MCL 700.2503’s savings clause allows probate of documents that fail formalities, including lack of signature, if clear and convincing evidence shows testamentary intent | Mayssa: Signature is required under MCL 700.2502; 700.2503 only applies to flawed executions, not unsigned documents | Court: MCL 700.2503 applies to documents that do not meet 700.2502 formalities, so an unsigned document may be admitted if proponent proves decedent’s intent by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Casey Estate, 306 Mich. App. 252 (discussing standard of review for summary disposition and statutory interpretation)
- In re Estate of Smith, 252 Mich. App. 120 (permitting extrinsic evidence to determine whether a document reflects the decedent’s intent)
- In re Jajuga Estate, 312 Mich. App. 706 (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to plain language)
- In re Probate of Will & Codicil of Macool, 3 A.3d 1258 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (concluding a signature is not required where clear and convincing evidence shows testamentary intent)