Lead
This is an inheritance dispute between the natural children of Everett and Mary Alice Casey, Kathryn and Kirk Casey, and Renee and Bruce Keene, who claim to be the offspring of Everett and their mother’s (Corinne Keene) adulterous affair in the 1960s. Everett and Corinne were both married during their alleged affair. In these consolidated appeals, appellants, Renee and Bruce Keene, appeal as of right the order granting summary disposition in favor of appellee Kathryn Casey. Kathryn Casey filed three separate motions for summary disposition below and argued: (1) neither Renee nor Bruce were interested persons or heirs of the decedent, Everett; (2) the decedent’s 1997 will is valid and unrevoked; and (3) the decedent did not gift the contents of the safe located at his company’s office to Bruce before his death. Renee and Bruce challenge the probate court’s determination that they are not interested persons or heirs of the decedent. Bruce also challenges the probate court’s determination that the decedent did not gift the contents of his safe to him. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The decedent, Everett Casey, and his wife, Mary Alice, who predeceased him, had two children during their marriage, Kathryn and Kirk Casey. During the latter part of the decedent’s lifetime, Bruce worked for the decedent’s company, Precision Standard Inc. (PSI). In July 1997, the decedent executed a will and trust, naming in his trust Kathryn and Kirk as his only children.
The probate court issued a thorough written opinion and order granting Kathryn’s motions for summary disposition on the grounds that (1) Renee and Bruce were not interested persons, (2) the 1997 will was valid and unrevoked, and (3) nо genuine issue of material fact existed that the decedent did not gift the contents of the safe to Bruce. The decedent’s 1997 will was admitted to probate and the court
With respect to the interested-person determination, the probate court ruled that MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(v) was inapplicable because the plain language of the statute requires an initial finding either that Renee and Bruce were born out of wedlock or that they were born or conceived during the marriage but were not the issue of the marriage before the court could make a natural-parent determination under MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(v). The court reasoned that because Corinne and Robert Keene were married when Bruce and Renee were born, Robert Keene is the presumed father and “there has been no determination that the children were not an issue of the marriage,” and thus, Renee and Bruce were not interested persons.
II. ANALYSIS
A. INTERESTED PERSONS
Renee and Bruce contend that the probate court erred in its interpretation and applicatiоn of MCL 700.2114(1)(b)(v) and improperly granted summary disposition in favor of Kathryn on this basis. This challenge involves questions of statutory interpretation and standing, which we review de novo. In re MCI Telecom Complaint,
“The paramount rule of statutory interpretation is that we are to effect the intent of the Legislature.” Omelenchuk v City of Warren,
At the time of the decedent’s death in 2012, the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., was in effect, and accordingly governs the
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), for purposes of intestate succession by, through, or frоm an individual, an individual is the child of his or her natural parents, regardless of their marital status. The parent and child relationship may be established in any of the following manners:
(a) If a child is born or conceived during a marriage, both spouses are presumed to be the natural parents of the child for purposes of intestate succession. A child conceived by a married woman with the consent of her husband following utilization of assisted reproductive technology is considered as their child for purposes of intestate succession. Consent of the husband is presumed unless the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence. If a man and a woman participated in a marriage ceremony in apparent compliance with the law before the birth of a child, even though the attempted marriage may be void, the child is presumed to be their child for purposes of intestate succession.
(b) If a child is born out of wedlock or if a child is born or conceived during a marriage but is riot the issue of that marriage, a man is considered to be the child’s natural father for purposes of intestate succession if any of the following occur:
(v) Regardless of the child’s age or whether or not the alleged father has died, the court with jurisdiction over probate proceedings relating to the decedent’s estate determines that the man is the child’s father, using the standards and procedures established under the paternity act,1956 PA 205 , MCL 722.711 to 722.730.
(5) Only the individual presumed to be the natural parent of a child under subsection (l)(a) may disprove a presumption that is relevant to that parent and child relationship, and this exclusive right tо disprove the presumption terminates on the death of the presumed parent. [MCL 700.2114 (emphasis added).]
As a preliminary matter, we recognize that the statute clearly provides that, for purposes of intestate succession, a child is
The Legislature’s use of the word “if” at the start of the subsection and the relevant clause is critical. The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001) offers several definitions of “if,” the more pertinent being: “1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that[.]” See Hottmann v Hottmann,
Under these provisions, a presumption exists that Bruce and Renee are the children of Corinne and Robert Keene, as they were married when Bruce and Renee were conceived (a fact established by their birth certificates). MCL 700.2114(1)(a). Because of that undisputed fact, Renee and Bruce established that they were born during a marriage. But what of the proof that they were not the issue of that marriage? Bruce and Renee claim that DNA evidencе purportedly showing that they are the biological children of the decedent accomplishes that task.
However, the plain language of MCL 700.2114(5) provides the exclusive means by which the presumption of natural
Before moving on, we make two additional points. First, appellants’ reliance upon In re Daniels Estate,
Second, we reject Bruce and Renee’s assertion that the subsection of the statute allowing for testing under the paternity act (MCL 700.2114(b)(v)) to determine who the natural parent is would have no meaning if there was an initial requirement to show (under MCL 700.2114(b)) that the child was born out of wedlоck (which presumably is accomplished by DNA testing as it is under the paternity act). What that argument glosses over is the different purposes of each showing. It is one thing to prove that a child’s presumed parent is not the natural parent; it is a wholly separate thing to prove that another person is the child’s natural parent. These are separate issues, and our reading of thе statute is that the Legislature has conditioned proof of the former as being required before a child can proceed to proof of the latter.
B. GIFT
Finally, we reject Bruce’s contention that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the decedent made an inter vivos gift of the contents of his safe to Bruce. Our review of this issue implicates MCR 2.116(0(10). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n,
“[F]or a gift to be valid, three elements must be satisfied: (1) the donor must possess the intent to transfer title gratuitously to the donee, (2) there must be actual or constructive delivery of the subject matter to the donee, unless it is already in the donee’s possession, and (3) the donee must accept the gift.” Davidson v Bugbee,
Here, as the probate court found, Bruce’s affidavit fails to establish delivery. Indeed, although Bruce claims the decedent provided him the combination to the safe and indicated that the contents of the safe belonged to him, it was the decedent who retained dominion and control over the safe and its contents. The safe was located in the decedent’s office at PSI, a company exclusively owned by the decedent. In addition, the decedent retained control of the combination, which he could change at any time, thereby precluding Bruce’s access to the safe’s contents. This means the decеdent retained not only control, but the power of recall. There was no delivery. Id.
Affirmed.
No costs will be allowed on appeal. MCR 7.219(A).
Notes
The decedent’s will left certain property to his children, bnt did not explicitly state their names.
Throughout these proceedings the parties have operated under the correct understanding that MCL 700.1105, which relates to intestate succession, applies to this issue despite the decedent’s having a valid will at the time of his death. That is because EPIC describes who is entitled to notice to challenge a will, and the statutory definitions lead us to the intestate-succession provisions of MCL 700.2114. Specifically, notice must be given to all interested persons, MCL 700.1401, and interested persons is defined to include a “child,” MCL 700.1105(c), and child is in turn defined as “an individual entitled to take as a child under this act by intеstate succession from the parent whose relationship is involved.” MCL 700.1103(f). That definition thus requires application of MCL 700.2114.
In response to our concurring colleague, we simply state that although there may be more than one dictionary definition of a term, this does not render the statute ambiguous, Lash v Traverse City,
Based on this conclusion, Benee and Bruce lack standing to challenge the admission of the decedent’s 1997 will to probate. Kathryn’s argument that this issue has been abandoned on appeal is therefore moot.
The probate court should have relied exclusively on the statutory language, as the citation to In re Quintero Estate,
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring). I concur with the majority’s affirmance and reasoning. I write separately only to note my belief that this Court is capable of construing the meaning of the word “if” without consulting a lay dictionary. See ADVO-Systems, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury,
I do not disagree with the general principle that we may consult dictionaries as an aid in interpreting statutory language. See, e.g., Hottmann v Hottmann,
While it is proper that we consult both legal and lay dictionaries in the execution of that responsibility, we should not construe a particular definition in a particular edition of a particular dictionary as the definitive interpretation of the meaning of a statute or even of a particular word in that statute. Indeed, once recourse to any aid — including a dictionary — outside the bare legislative text, is deemed required, the statutory language cannot fairly be viewed as plain and unambiguous on its face and so must be interpreted in accordance with all the rules of statutory construction rather than only the one that allows consultation of a dictionary. Otherwise, we risk the possibility that a court may simply justify its own policy preferences by reference to a selected definition in a selected edition of a selеcted dictionary, followed by a claim that no further analysis of legislative intent is needed or even permitted. In the absence of a legislative designation of a particular dictionary’s use, it cannot be said that one dictionary is the best, let alone conclusive, determiner of legislative intent, which, as always, is the indisputable touchstone of statutory interpretation. See Hoffman, Parse the Sentence First: Curbing the Urge to Resort to the Dictionary When Interpreting Legal Texts, 6 NYU J Legis & Pub Pol’y 401 (2003).