In re Daniels Estate
301 Mich. App. 450
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Decedent Richard J. Daniels died in 2012; Tonya Asbury (daughter) was appointed personal representative and later removed.
- Jamie Leonard petitioned to be appointed personal representative, claiming to be the decedent’s son.
- Evidence: Leonard born while his mother cohabited with decedent; decedent later married Leonard’s mother; birth certificate lacked father's name; witnesses (including decedent’s girlfriend and family members) testified that Leonard and decedent had a parent–child relationship and mutually acknowledged each other as parent/child.
- DNA test results were pending at the probate hearing; the probate court found the mutually acknowledged relationship satisfied MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(iii) and appointed Leonard as successor personal representative.
- Asbury appealed, arguing the statute requires a preliminary finding of biological parentage before applying the mutually acknowledged-relationship subsection.
- Leonard sought sanctions for a vexatious appeal; the Court of Appeals denied sanctions for procedural reasons (no separate motion and no authority cited).
Issues
| Issue | Asbury's Argument | Leonard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(iii) requires a prior finding of biological parentage before applying the "mutually acknowledged relationship" test | The statute must be read to require that the man be a biological parent before the mutually acknowledged subsection applies | The statute’s text "considers" a man to be a natural father based on listed circumstances; no biological requirement exists for subsection (iii) | The court held no biological precondition is required; subsection (iii) requires only (1) a mutually acknowledged parent–child relationship, (2) established before age 18, and (3) continuing until death of either party. |
| Whether sanctions for a vexatious appeal were appropriate | Leonard requested sanctions | Asbury responded via appeal brief (no separate motion) | Sanctions denied: request not properly presented (no separate motion; insufficient authority), so will not be awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Turpening Estate, 258 Mich. App. 464 (discussing statutory construction principles)
- Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc., 482 Mich. 269 (undefined statutory words given plain meaning)
- Johnson v. Pastoriza, 491 Mich. 417 (courts may consult dictionaries for undefined statutory terms)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich. 1 (statutory text must be read in context)
- Mich. Basic Prop. Ins. Ass’n v. Office of Fin. & Ins. Regulation, 288 Mich. App. 552 (courts should not supply omitted statutory provisions)
- In re Quintero Estate, 224 Mich. App. 682 (prior-era probate code case; distinguishable on facts and statutory scheme)
- The Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich. App. 39 (procedural requirements for requesting appellate sanctions)