in Re Estate of Eugenie Dietrich
332751
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Testator Eugenie Dietrich’s 1989 will left her entire estate to her husband Rudi, and if he predeceased her, devised the residue "to Peter R. Dietrich and Johann H. Dietrich, my sons, to be divided between them in equal shares, share and share alike."
- Rudi predeceased Eugenie; Eugenie died in 2014. Johann predeceased Eugenie but left two children, Renee and Racquel; Peter is the only surviving son.
- Peter petitioned to admit the will to probate and asked the court to interpret whether Johann’s share passes to Peter (as surviving class member) or to Johann’s children under Michigan’s anti‑lapse statute.
- Probate court ruled Eugenie made individual gifts to Peter and Johann, not a class gift, and applied MCL 700.2603 (anti‑lapse) so Johann’s share passes to his children.
- Peter appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed will construction de novo and affirmed the probate court.
Issues
| Issue | Peter’s Argument | Racquel’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the devise to "Peter and Johann, my sons, share and share alike" created a class gift or individual bequests | The wording created a class gift to "sons," so a per capita distribution means Peter (surviving class member) takes Johann’s share | The devise named Peter and Johann individually (by name) and lacked survivorship language, so they are individual beneficiaries | The court held it was individual bequests, not a class gift |
| Whether anti‑lapse statute (MCL 700.2603) applies to Johann’s share | Argued statute should not apply if a class gift was created | Contended statute applies because no alternate devise provided and the devise was not a class gift | The court held anti‑lapse applies; Johann’s share passes to his children |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Raymond, 483 Mich 48 (discussing will construction, class gifts, and per capita distribution)
- In re Brown's Estate, 324 Mich 264 (named beneficiaries who "share and share alike" held to take as individuals, not as a class)
- Cattell v. Evans, 301 Mich 708 (naming beneficiaries indicates individual gifts rather than class gifts)