In re Casey Estate
306 Mich. App. 252
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Decedent Everett Casey died in 2012; his 1997 will/trust named his children Kathryn and Kirk as beneficiaries. Kathryn petitioned to admit the will to probate.
- Appellants Renee and Bruce Keene claimed Everett was their biological father from an extramarital affair between Everett and their mother, Corinne, despite their birth certificates naming Robert Keene (who was married to Corinne when they were born).
- Renee and Bruce filed demands for notice and objections, asserting they were "interested persons" (children/heirs) entitled to challenge the will under EPIC and MCL 700.2114.
- The probate court granted Kathryn’s three summary-disposition motions: (1) Renee and Bruce were not interested persons; (2) the 1997 will was valid and unrevoked; (3) no genuine factual dispute that Everett did not make an inter vivos gift of the safe contents to Bruce.
- The court’s interested-person ruling was based on MCL 700.2114(1)(a)–(b) and (5): because Renee and Bruce were born during a marriage, Robert Keene was presumptive father and only the presumptive parent (or that parent’s estate) may rebut that presumption; that exclusive right ended with Robert’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renee/Bruce) | Defendant's Argument (Kathryn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Renee and Bruce are "interested persons" entitled to notice / to challenge paternity under MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(v) | DNA evidence establishes Everett is biological father so they should be treated as children/heirs and entitled to proceed under the paternity-act procedures | MCL 700.2114(1)(a) creates a presumption that children born during a marriage are issue of that marriage; only the presumptive parent may disprove that presumption per MCL 700.2114(5); Robert Keene (the presumptive parent) is deceased and his exclusive right to rebut expired | Court held Renee and Bruce are not interested persons; they cannot invoke MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(v) because they did not (and cannot) first overcome the marital presumption as required by the statute and MCL 700.2114(5) bars others from doing so after the presumptive parent’s death |
| Whether Everett made a valid inter vivos gift of the safe contents to Bruce | Bruce asserts Everett gave him the safe combination and said the contents belonged to Bruce (implying delivery and intent) | Kathryn contends Everett retained dominion and control (safe in Everett’s office at his company; Everett kept control of combination and could change it), so there was no delivery or consummated gift | Court held no genuine issue of material fact; no inter vivos gift because donor retained dominion/control and power of recall; delivery not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Omelenchuk v. City of Warren, 466 Mich 524 (statutory-interpretation principles govern and courts enforce plain statutory language)
- In re Turpening Estate, 258 Mich App 464 (courts must give every word meaning and avoid rendering statutory language superfluous)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (statutes read in context; provisions construed as a whole)
- In re Daniels Estate, 301 Mich App 450 (distinguishable: child there was born out of wedlock so different application of MCL 700.2114)
- McHone v. Sosnowski, 239 Mich App 674 (procedural standards for MCR 2.116(C)(8)/(C)(5) review)
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich 200 (standards for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-disposition review)
- Davidson v. Bugbee, 227 Mich App 264 (elements and requirements for a valid inter vivos gift)
- Osius v. Dingell, 375 Mich 605 (delivery and dominion/control required for consummated inter vivos gift)