In re Leete Estate
290 Mich. App. 647
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Frederick D. Leete III and Barbara R. Leete owned a Mackinaw City cottage as tenants by the entirety and Barbara died first in 2008 with Frederick dying shortly after.
- Frederick had a will (1994/1974) directing Barbara to survive 30 days for full ownership; otherwise real estate would pass to Frederick’s issue per stirpes.
- Barbara’s daughter, Cynthia Sherman, personal representative of Barbara’s estate, claimed a one-half interest in jointly held property under EPIC’s simultaneous-death rule (MCL 700.2702).
- Appellant Frederick Leete (son) contested applying EPIC, arguing the deed and Frederick’s will predate EPIC and should govern; he sought dismissal or alternative disposition.
- The probate court signed a May 19, 2009 order conditioned on evidence of Frederick’s survival by 120 hours; after no such evidence, an August 20, 2009 order granted summary disposition for Sherman.
- The issue is whether EPIC applies, whether the 120-hour rule should divide the property, and whether the orders were validly entered under MCR 2.602(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the May 19 and August 20 orders meet MCR 2.602(B)(2)? | Leete argues the order void for form/entry defects. | Sherman contends form approved by both parties and in conformity with decision. | Yes; orders validly entered under MCR 2.602(B)(2). |
| Should EPIC apply to Frederick’s estate despite pre-EPIC instruments? | EPIC does not apply; governing instruments predate EPIC and accrue rights would be impaired. | EPIC applies to governing instruments executed before EPIC if no accrued rights are impaired. | EPIC applies; governing instruments predate EPIC but no accrued rights impaired. |
| Does EPIC’s 120-hour rule apply to the property at issue? | 120-hour rule is inapplicable due to contrary intent and potential exceptions. | 120-hour rule applies; Barbara’s estate should receive half absent evidence of survival by 120 hours. | Yes; 120-hour rule applies; property divided per MCL 700.2702(3). |
| Are exceptions to the 120-hour rule applicable here? | MCL 700.2702(4) exceptions save Frederick’s will/evidence of longer survival. | No applicable exception; deed changed disposition and did not trigger an exception. | No; none of the exceptions apply to alter the 120-hour rule outcome. |
| Did the probate court apply the correct standard of proof for 120 hours? | Court applied wrong standard by misreading the order. | Order properly reflected strict clear-and-convincing standard under MCL 700.2702(1). | Correct; clear-and-convincing standard applied; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal Prop Group, LLC v Prime Ins Syndicate, Inc., 267 Mich App 708 (2005) (preservation and de novo review standards for summary disposition)
- Marketos v American Employers Ins Co, 465 Mich 407 (2001) (statutory interpretation of court rules)
- Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449 (2006) (definition of 'form' under court rules; plain language analysis)
- Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich App 122 (2008) (EPIC extrinsic rules of construction and survivorship issues)
- In re Smith Estate, 252 Mich App 120 (2002) (accrued rights and vesting in probate context)
- In re Nestorovski Estate, 283 Mich App 177 (2009) (EPIC jurisdiction and applicability to nonresident estates)