in Re Donnelly Estate
331420
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Petitioner (identified as Gretchen Helfrich as attorney for Jamie Lee Peterson) filed a petition for formal testacy proceedings concerning the estate of Brian Donnelly, naming Ruthann Donnelly (the widow) as heir.
- The petition characterized the petitioner as a creditor and stated litigation against the estate was pending; petitioner’s counsel told the probate court an action had been filed in federal court.
- Petitioner sought to open the estate to enable service/continuation of the federal lawsuit against the estate.
- At the hearing, petitioner offered to provide the federal complaint, but the probate court declined to accept it or otherwise consider evidence establishing petitioner’s status as a creditor.
- The probate court denied the petition for formal proceedings, reasoning petitioner had not shown creditor status and therefore lacked standing to petition as a creditor.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, concluding the probate court should determine whether petitioner—though not proven a creditor—qualifies as an “interested person” or a person with a right or cause of action that cannot be enforced without administration under MCL 700.3401(1) and MCL 700.1105(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner had standing to seek formal testacy proceedings | Peterson argued she filed a federal action and needs the estate opened to serve and pursue that claim (thus has a right or cause of action) | Ruthann argued petitioner failed to prove creditor status and thus lacks standing to open the estate | Vacated and remanded: petitioner may be an “interested person” or have a cause of action that requires administration; probate court must consider evidence (including the federal complaint) |
| Whether proof of creditor status is required to petition for formal proceedings | Peterson contended creditor status is not the only basis; a person with an enforceable claim or who is otherwise interested can petition | Ruthann relied on lack of demonstrated creditor claim to oppose standing | Court held creditor status is not the sole basis; court must evaluate whether petitioner fits statutory definitions of an interested person or has a right/cause of action requiring administration |
| Whether the probate court erred by refusing the federal complaint evidence | Peterson offered the complaint to show an existing lawsuit against the estate | Ruthann did not contest admission at hearing; probate court declined it | Court found the probate court improperly foreclosed consideration of that evidence and remanded for further proceedings |
| Standard of review for standing/statutory interpretation | N/A (issue raised on appeal) | N/A | Court reviews standing and statutory interpretation de novo; remanded for factual determination by probate court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich. App. 122 (2008) (generally review probate court decisions on the record)
- In re Casey Estate, 306 Mich. App. 252 (2014) (standing and statutory-interpretation issues reviewed de novo)
- In re Foster, 226 Mich. App. 348 (1998) (party must have legally protected interest to have standing)
- Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23 (1989) (party must have a real interest or legal/equitable right in the subject matter to have standing)