in Re Jajuga Estate
312 Mich. App. 706
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent Shelby Jajuga’s will (and later codicil) disinherited her sole surviving child, Susan Veith, and left the estate to other named beneficiaries; Joann Chelenyak is the personal representative.
- Veith petitioned under MCL 700.2404 for exempt property (a Buick, a tractor, and cash or $14,000), claiming the statute entitles children to exempt property if no spouse survives.
- Chelenyak refused, arguing the will’s express disinheritance eliminated Veith’s right to exempt property.
- The probate court (issue of first impression in Michigan) held MCL 700.2404 gives surviving children a statutory right to exempt property that a testator cannot defeat by disinheritance absent clear statutory language.
- The probate court found “entitled” denotes a legal right, that “in addition to” makes the exemption independent of testamentary devises, and that EPIC provisions (and related statutes) make devises subject to exempt property.
- This Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting MCL 700.2404 as creating an indefeasible statutory right for children (when no spouse survives) to claim exempt property unless the statute or will clearly provides otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veith) | Defendant's Argument (Chelenyak) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a decedent may eliminate an adult child’s claim to exempt property by disinheriting the child in a will | MCL 700.2404 "entitles" children to exempt property as a statutory right independent of testamentary gifts | A testator can disinherit a child and thereby prevent the child from claiming exempt property; "entitled" only denotes eligibility or priority | Held for Veith: "entitled" creates a legal right to exempt property; disinheritance without clear reference to statutory rights does not defeat that right |
| Whether MCL 700.2101 or other EPIC provisions render MCL 700.2404 subordinate to testamentary intent | Exempt property is "in addition to" devises per MCL 700.2404(3); MCL 700.3101 makes devises subject to homestead, family allowance, and exempt property | Testamentary intent governs wills and should control distributions where possible | Court: EPIC limits testamentary power (MCL 700.3101); exempt property operates independently of intestacy provisions and can supersede devises |
| Meaning of "in addition to" and "unless otherwise provided" in MCL 700.2404(3) | These phrases make exempt property supplemental and not conditioned on receiving a devise; absent a clear will provision stating exempt property is replaced, the statutory right remains | "Unless otherwise provided" includes an explicit disinheritance in the will, which should bar the exemption | Court: "In addition to" means separate/supplemental; a general disinheritance that does not clearly address statutory rights does not invoke "unless otherwise provided" |
| Whether a child’s right to exempt property is inferior to a surviving spouse’s (i.e., not vested) | Children’s rights when no spouse survives are equivalent/vested and not easily waived or eliminated | Statutory waiver rights (MCL 700.2205) for spouses but not children show children have inferior or non-vested rights | Court: No clear legislative intent to make children’s rights inferior; absence of express statutory distinction means child’s right is vested like a spouse’s |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich. App. 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review principles for statutory interpretation in EPIC context)
- Book-Gilbert v. Greenleaf, 302 Mich. App. 538 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory construction rules and giving effect to every phrase)
- In re Webb H. Coe Marital & Residuary Trusts, 233 Mich. App. 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (procedural posture: appeals from probate court reviewed on the record)
- Matter of Dunlap’s Estate, 649 P.2d 1303 (Mont. 1982) (child disinherited by will nonetheless entitled to exempt property under statute similar to MCL 700.2404)
- In re Estate of Peterson, 576 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1998) (Nebraska Supreme Court held statutory exempt‑property allowance vests and is not defeated by a will unless will clearly provides otherwise)
- Matter of Estate of Wagley, 760 P.2d 316 (Utah 1988) (statute construed to vest spouse/children with entitlement to exempt property)
- In re Estate of Martelle, 32 P.3d 758 (Mont. 2001) (construing homestead/exempt allowances as vested rights)