In Re Gene L Leithauser Trust, 357738

Settlor Gene L. Leithauser executed a trust in 1997 that provided for his wife Emilie during her lifetime, then divided the remainder among their three children (Janis 50%, Gail 25%, Kurt 25%) on termination after Emilie’s death.
Emilie died in February 2020; the trustee made a partial distribution in May 2020 but Kurt died before he received his full share.
Kurt’s wife Joyce (appellant and Kurt’s estate personal representative) and Kurt’s son Alexander (appellee) disputed entitlement to Kurt’s remaining share.
Trustee petitioned the probate court (March 2021) to determine the proper beneficiary of Kurt’s remaining share under Article VII(E)(4)(b) of the trust.
The probate court held the trust unambiguously requires that a deceased child’s share that was not distributed prior to termination be held in a “Grandchildren’s Trust,” and awarded Kurt’s remaining share to Alexander.
This appeal challenges that interpretation; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Joyce's Argument	Alexander's Argument	Held
Whether Kurt’s undelivered remainder interest must be distributed to Kurt’s estate or held in a Grandchildren’s Trust for Kurt’s child	Joyce: Kurt had a vested interest at Emilie’s death and his share should pass to his estate	Alexander: Trust requires surviving the termination and its distribution; Kurt died before distribution so his share goes into a Grandchildren’s Trust for descendants	Court: Trust unambiguous — beneficiary must survive both termination and distribution; Kurt died before distribution so remainder goes into a Grandchildren’s Trust for Alexander

In re Stillwell Trust, 299 Mich. App. 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (trust construction is reviewed de novo and court’s objective is to effect settlor’s intent)
In re Kostin, 278 Mich. App. 47 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (settlor intent is gauged from the document unless ambiguous)
In re Estate of Reisman, 266 Mich. App. 522 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (court must not rewrite a clear, unambiguous instrument)
American Fedn. of State, Co. & Mun. Employees v. Highland Park Bd. of Ed., 214 Mich. App. 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (word "shall" denotes a mandatory provision)
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Plumb, 282 Mich. App. 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (conjunction "and" requires both conditions be met when given its plain meaning)
Northline Excavating, Inc. v. Livingston Co., 302 Mich. App. 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (give effect to every word and avoid rendering parts surplusage)
Citizens Ins. Co. v. Pro-Seal Serv. Group, Inc., 477 Mich. 75 (Mich. 2007) (court may consult dictionary definitions when a term is undefined in the instrument)
Czapp v. Cox, 179 Mich. App. 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (rules interpreting contracts apply to wills and trusts)