in Re Ward Estate
329132
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Decedent allegedly executed a will leaving most of his estate to his son (appellant, James V. Ward III); the daughter (appellee, Karen Powers) contested, alleging the will was forged and intestacy should apply.
- A jury found the proffered will invalid; probate court thereafter determined intestacy heirs included the parties and the decedent’s stepson.
- Appellant moved to set aside the judgment claiming he was not served before the post-trial motion deadline; probate court denied the motion as appellant lacked diligence and appellee had acted diligently.
- Appellant challenged denial of the motion to set aside the judgment, the inclusion of the stepson as an intestate heir, and the probate court’s award of attorney fees to appellee payable by appellant personally.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside (harmless error), affirmed the finding that the stepson qualified as an intestate heir, and reversed the award of attorney fees to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ward) | Defendant's Argument (Powers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment should be set aside for lack of timely service | Ward: late service deprived him of post-trial motion opportunity (new trial for verdict against great weight) | Powers: she acted with due diligence; setting aside unnecessary | Denied; any error harmless because a new-trial motion would have been futile given the evidence credibility issues |
| Whether stepson is an intestate heir under MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(iii) | Ward: stepson’s 10-year imprisonment interrupted the parent-child relationship, defeating continuity requirement | Powers: limited contact during imprisonment still satisfied mutually acknowledged relationship continuing until death | Affirmed: trial court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous; limited contact was sufficient to continue the relationship |
| Whether appellee is entitled to recover attorney fees from appellant personally | Ward: fees should not be shifted to him; no statutory or equitable basis | Powers: litigation preserved estate by preventing distribution under an invalid will and thus justifies fee-shifting | Reversed: court erred; Michigan law permits fee-shifting only in narrow circumstances and appellee did not show services distinctly benefited the estate rather than her own interests |
| Whether trial court properly relied on trust statute and precedent to award fees | Ward: reliance on trust statute and inapposite authorities was erroneous | Powers: cited cases and equitable principles justify fees | Reversed: trial court misapplied MCL 700.7904(1) (trust statute) and precedents; fee award unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillispie v. Bd. of Tenant Affairs of Detroit Housing Comm., 145 Mich. App. 424 (1985) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of motion to set aside judgment)
- Dawe v. Dr. Reuven Bar-Levav & Assoc., P.C., 289 Mich. App. 380 (2010) (credibility conflicts are for the factfinder; verdict supported if competent evidence exists)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (1998) (credibility and impeachment standards; jury determinations of witness credibility upheld)
- In re Clarence W. Temple & Florence A. Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich. App. 122 (2008) (attorney-fee shifting to nonfiduciary limited to services that distinctly benefit the estate and address laches, negligence, or fraud by estate’s representative)
- Becht v. Miller, 279 Mich. 629 (1937) (historic rule limiting fee awards to those necessary to protect estate due to representative’s laches, negligence, or fraud)
- Phinney v. Perlmutter, 222 Mich. App. 513 (1997) (attorney fees are recoverable only where authorized by statute, rule, or recognized exception)