921 N.W.2d 308
Mich.2018Background
- James and Maggie Erwin married in 1968; Maggie moved out of the marital home in 1976 and the couple never resumed cohabitation, though they never divorced.
- James continued to treat Maggie as his spouse (she was listed as surviving spouse on his death certificate; James sued to restore her retiree medical coverage in 2010).
- James died intestate on October 12, 2012.
- One of James's children, Beatrice, was appointed personal representative and challenged Maggie's status as "surviving spouse" under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i), arguing Maggie had been "willfully absent" for more than one year before James's death.
- Probate court ruled for Maggie; Court of Appeals affirmed; Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed, addressing the statutory meaning of "willfully absent" and the required intent element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (Erwin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "willfully absent" under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i): physical only vs. include emotional/totality of circumstances | "Absent" means physically not present; the statute should be read in its plain, physical sense | "Willfully absent" can include emotional absence; courts must consider totality of circumstances (physical + emotional) | Court: "willfully absent" requires intentional absence and is judged by totality of circumstances; absence must encompass both physical and emotional elements (complete absence) rather than physical separation alone |
| Whether statute requires intent to abandon marital rights (i.e., intent to end the marriage) | Forfeiture should require an intent to abandon marital rights; otherwise harsh forfeiture could occur | Statute requires only intent to be absent ("willful" absence), not specific intent to forfeit marital rights | Court: No separate requirement to intend to abandon marital rights; the required intent is the intent to be absent for the statutory period |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buehler, 477 Mich. 18 (statutory interpretation standard)
- People v. Knight, 473 Mich. 324 (standard of review for factual findings)
- Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare Sys., 465 Mich. 53 (use of plain meaning/dictionary)
- In re Harris Estate, 151 Mich.App. 780 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (earlier case interpreting similar language; treated "willfully absent" as encompassing emotional as well as physical absence)
- In re Peterson Estate, 315 Mich.App. 423 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (contrary Court of Appeals decision treating "willfully absent" as physical absence only; overruled to extent inconsistent)
- Miller v. Pond, 214 Mich. 186 (disfavoring forfeitures; cited re: statutory construction)