In this probate case, we must decide whether the probate court properly entered an order pursuant to MCR 2.602(B)(2) and correctly interpreted and applied the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., and its simultaneous-death provision, MCL 700.2702. Appellant, Frederick D. Leete iy would have us conclude that the summary disposition order in favor of appellee, Cynthia K. Sherman, is void and that
I. BASIC FACTS
In 2008, Frederick DeLand Leete III and Barbara R. Leete, 80 and 75 years old respectively, had been married for 34 years and lived in Brownsburg, Indiana. They had no children from their marriage, but each had children from previous marriages. The Leetes owned, as tenants by the entirety, a cottage located in Mackinaw City in Emmet County, Michigan, which is the property that is the subject of this dispute. Apparently, Frederick had inherited this property, which had been in the Leete family for about 100 years. Nonetheless, Frederick and Barbara executed a quitclaim deed, dated October 29, 1996, which indicated that Frederick and Barbara would own, as tenants by the entirety,
[a]ll those portion of lots 59 and 60 of Block A in the Village of Mackinaw City, according to the recorded plat thereof, as lie North of the 15 ft. alley or service roadway bisecting said lots,
ALSO
Lot 61 of Block A in the Village of Mackinaw City, according to the recorded plat thereof, including all of said lot lying on both sides of the existing service road;
TOGETHER WITH ALL TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN OR ON SAID PREMISESL]
On February 28, 2008, at an unknown time, Frederick allegedly left his vehicle running in the garage after returning from the store. That same day, Barbara’s daughter went to Barbara and Frederick’s home and discovered Barbara dead and Frederick unconscious.
On May 23, 2008, appellant, who was Frederick’s son, filed a petition for probate and appointment as the personal representative of Frederick’s estate. Accordingly, Frederick’s will was submitted to probate, and appellant was appointed personal representative to administer Frederick’s estate. With regard to the disputed property, Frederick’s will provided:
I give and bequeath to my wife, Barbara R. Leete, if she shall survive me for a period of more than thirty (30) days, all real estate and improvements thereon of which I may die the owner or parr [sic] owner, specifically including the real estate and improvements located on Lot 62, Block “A”, Mackinaw City, Emmett County, Michigan. In the event my said wife shall not survive me for a period of more than thirty (30) days, then I give and bequeath such real estate to my aforenamed children who survive me for a period of more than thirty (30) days, per stirpes and not per capita.
Appellant filed an inventory of Frederick’s estate, listing among Frederick’s assets the property located in Mackinaw City.
On November 24, 2008, appellee, who was Barbara’s daughter and the personal representative of Barbara’s estate, filed an appearance in the case, giving notice to Frederick’s estate that Barbara’s estate sought a one-half interest in all jointly
Except as provided in subsection (4), if it is not established by clear and convincing evidence that 1 of 2 co-owners with right of survivorship survived the other co-owner by 120 hours, 1l2 of the co-owned property passes as if 1 had survived by 120 hours and 1h as if the other had survived by 120 hours. If there are more than 2 co-owners and it is not established by clear and convincing evidence that at least 1 of them survived the others by 120 hours, the property passes in the proportion that 1 bears to the whole number of co-owners. For the purposes of this subsection, “co-owners with right of survivorship” includes joint tenants, tenants by the entireties, and other co-owners of property or accounts held under circumstances that entitles 1 or more to the whole of the property or account on the death of the other or others. [Emphasis added.]
Accordingly, on February 23, 2009, appellee filed a petition for a determination of the rights of Barbara’s estate and requested appellant to amend the inventory of Frederick’s estate in conformance with the statute.
In response, appellant asserted that MCL 700.2702(3) was inapplicable and asked that the Mackinaw City property be distributed according to Frederick’s will, as if Frederick had survived Barbara. Appellant alleged that Barbara died on February 27, 2008, and that Frederick, thus, died more than 120 hours after Barbara’s death. Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of this allegation. Appellant also argued that even if MCL 700.2702(3) was applicable, an exception in MCL 700.2702(4) applied and required that the property be divided according to the “governing instrument,” Frederick’s will. Appellant requested the court to adjourn the proceedings for appellant to substantiate his claim that Barbara died more than 120 hours before Frederick’s death.
The probate court granted appellant’s request for an adjournment. However, instead of producing evidence related to the time of Barbara’s death, appellant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Appellant asserted that the property should be distributed consistently with Frederick’s will and that even if the will were not the “governing instrument,” MCL 700.2702(3) was inapplicable because it became effective four years after the deed was executed. In appellant’s view, once Barbara died the property passed, in whole, to Frederick and his will precluded the property’s division.
Appellee countered that Barbara’s estate was entitled to summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(1)(2) and (C)(10). Appellee argued that EPIC explicitly applies to the factual circumstances at issue and that the deed, not Frederick’s will, was the governing instrument at issue. Appellee further asserted that because Frederick and Barbara died within 120 hours of each other, one-half the interest of the Mackinaw City property vested in Barbara’s estate under MCL 700.2702(3). In response, appellant argued that his interpretation of EPIC was correct. However, appellant asked for additional time to
At the motion hearing, the probate court initially denied both parties’ motions for summary disposition. However, appellee’s attorney presented to the court an order that the court indicated it would “follow” and sign if both parties agreed to “the form of that order.” The order provided, in relevant part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that unless Frederick D. Leete IY Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick Deland Leete III, Deceased, within [90] days from the date hereof, submits evidence that Frederick Deland Leete, III, survived Barbara R. Leete by 120 hours, the relief requested by the Petition and Motion For Summary Disposition filed by Cynthia K. Sherman, Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara R. Leete, Deceased, shall be GRANTED, and the attached proposed Order shall be entered.
In the event such evidence of survival is submitted, Petitioner shall have [90] days to respond to such evidence, and the Court, if necessary, may schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute.
Both attorneys for the parties signed the order “approved as to form,” and the probate court entered the order on May 19, 2009.
Ninety days later, on August 20, 2009, the court entered an order granting summary disposition in appellee’s favor. It found “no clear and convincing evidence” that Frederick had survived Barbara by 120 hours and that Barbara’s estate was entitled to half of any coowned property pursuant to MCL 700.2702(3). It ordered appellant to amend his inventory accordingly. This appeal followed.
II. ENTRY OF THE ORDER
Appellant first argues that the probate court’s August 20 order is void because it did not meet the requirements of MCR 2.602(B). We disagree. Appellant never raised this issue below, the probate court did not consider or decide this issue, and the matter is unpreserved for appeal. People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc,
A trial court’s interpretation and application of a court rule is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. See Marketos v American Employers Ins Co,
At issue in the present matter is MCR 2.602, which governs the “entry of judgments and orders.” MCR 2.602(B), titled “Procedure of Entry of Judgments and Orders,” provides:
An order or judgment shall be entered by one of the following methods:
(1) The court may sign the judgment or order at the time it grants the relief provided by the judgment or order.
(2) The court shall sign the judgment or order when its form is approved by all the parties and if, in the court’s determination, it comports with the court’s decision.
(3) Within 7 days after the granting of the judgment or order, or later if the court allows, a party may serve a copy of the proposed judgment or order on the other parties, with a notice to them that it will be submitted to the court for signing if no written objections to its accuracy or completeness are filed with the court clerk within 7 days after service of the notice. The party must file with the court clerk the original of the proposed judgment or order and proof of its service on the other parties.
(4) A party may prepare a proposed judgment or order and notice it for settlement before the court. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, under MCR 2.602(B), for an order to be valid, it must be entered in one of four ways: it may be signed at the time relief is granted; it may be signed when its “form” is approved by all the parties and if, in the court’s determination, it comports with the court’s decision; it may be entered pursuant to the “seven-day rule”; or, it may be prepared and noticed for settlement before the court.
The only relevant subrule of MCR 2.602(B) for purposes of this appeal is MCR 2.602(B)(2). The language of that provision is plain and unambiguous. An order must be signed and entered if two requirements are met: (1) the order’s “form” is approved by all the parties and (2) in the court’s determination, the order is in conformity with the court’s decision. The term “form” is not defined by the court rule and, in such instances, this Court may rely on dictionary definitions to give terms their plain and ordinary meanings. See Kloian,
Although the probate court initially denied both parties’ motions for summary disposition at the motion hearing on May 19, 2009, indicating that the case needed “to be developed a little more,” it retracted this initial disposition and adopted the parties’ suggested course of proceeding with the matter. Specifically, appellee’s counsel informed the court that
Given these facts, the probate court entered the May 19 order consistently with MCR 2.602(B)(2). The first requirement of MCR 2.602(B)(2) was met: both parties agreed to the form of the order, which in this case involved the entry of a subsequent order granting summary disposition for appellee if certain conditions were not met. Counsels’ signatures on the order, juxtaposed with the phrase “approved as to form” above each signature, are evidence that the order’s form was approved by all parties. Moreover, the second requirement of MCR 2.602(B)(2) was also met, given the court’s unequivocal statement at the motion hearing that it would follow appellee’s suggested course of action so long as “both [parties] agree to the form of th[e] order. . . .” The parties did so agree, and the court signed the order. In addition, because a court speaks through its written orders, the court’s signature on the May 19 order implies that the substance of the order was in conformity with its decision to follow appellee’s suggested course of action. Accordingly, the May 19 order was properly entered under MCR 2.602(B)(2).
Further, because the May 19 order was validly entered and the August 20 order was entered pursuant to the procedure established in the May 19 order, we also conclude that the August 20 order was validly entered under the same subrule. As already explained, the August 20 order was entered by operation of the procedure set forth in the May 19 order. It would be illogical for us to conclude that the August 20 order was not validly entered pursuant to MCR 2.602(B)(2), given that the parties agreed to the form of the May 19 order, which specifically contemplated entry of the August 20 order and was signed by the court consistently with its decision. In other words, under the circumstances of this case, the parties’ initial agreement about form in the first order was imputed to all subsequent orders entered consistently with that original agreement. Thus, because the parties agreed with respect to form and the order was consistent with the court’s decision, the August 20 order was validly entered pursuant to MCR 2.602(B)(2).
Lastly, for us to declare that the August 20 order was invalidly entered would allow litigants to haphazardly agree to the entry of orders that envision the entry of additional orders and later escape the effect of those subsequently entered orders on appeal by declaring the later orders void. The outcome would be a waste of judicial resources and would unnecessarily increase the cost of litigation to the parties’ detriment. Moreover, we note, contrary to appellant’s argument, that nothing in the plain language of MCR 2.602(B)(2) explicitly prohibits the type of conditional order that was entered in this matter. Nor do we agree with appellant’s argument that the order was not in conformity with the probate court’s decision. Accordingly, we conclude that both the May 19 and August 20 orders were validly entered pursuant to MCR 2.602(B)(2).
Appellant next contends that the probate court erred by granting appellee summary disposition. We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Royal Prop Group,
At the outset, we note that appellant’s argument on appeal is responsive not to the existence of a factual question, but to an interpretation of the applicable law. Specifically, appellant posits that we should reverse the probate court’s August 20 order because it made no findings about the applicability and effect of Indiana law, whether EPIC applied, whether a contrary intent precluded the application of MCL 700.2702(3), and whether an exception to the 120-hour rule applied, see MCL 700.2702(4). Appellant also asserts that the probate court applied the incorrect standard of proof.
We disagree that reversal is required on the basis of the probate court’s alleged failure to make any conclusions with regard to the applicable law. This position is without support in the record. Rather, the probate court — by adopting appellee’s suggested course of action at the May 19 motion hearing, which appellant agreed to in form only, and by entering the August 20 order in conformity therewith — concluded that appellee’s interpretation of the relevant statutes was correct and narrowed the dispositive issue to whether Frederick passed away more than 120 hours after Barbara under MCL 700.2702(3). Thus, our review is limited to whether the probate court’s interpretation of EPIC was correct, which is a question of law we review de novo. In re Clarence W Temple & Florence A Temple Marital Trust,
A. DOES MICHIGAN PROBATE LAW APPLY?
In 1998, the Michigan Legislature enacted EPIC,
Appellant contends that the probate court’s failure to consider the effect and application of Indiana laws of survivorship requires reversal and remand. We disagree. Implicit in the probate court’s decision was the conclusion that Indiana law was inapplicable to the administration of Frederick’s estate and that Michigan law was the correct choice of law. We see no error in this ruling. Although Frederick had a residence, and died, in Indiana, appellant filed an affidavit of domicile with the probate court that listed Frederick’s domicile as 804 Lakeside Drive, Mackinaw City, Michigan. Thus, application of EPIC to the administration of Frederick’s estate was appropriate. See MCL 700.1301(a).
Even if we were to assume that Frederick was an Indiana resident, we would reach the same conclusion. Michigan probate courts have jurisdiction over property located in this state, including property that is owned by a nonresident decedent, MCL 700.1302, and EPIC explicitly applies to a nonresident’s property located in Michigan, MCL 700.1301(b). Moreover, neither Frederick’s will nor any other documentary evidence evinces an intent that Indiana law should apply to the administration of his estate. And while Indiana undoubtedly has some interest in the administration of the estates of its deceased residents, Michigan’s interest in the present matter is greater, given the fact that the property at issue is located in Michigan and in value comprises the bulk of the assets of Frederick’s estate. See Frydrych v Wentland, 252 Mich App 360, 363-364;
B. DOES EPIC OR FORMER LAW APPLY?
Appellant next argues that EPIC is inapplicable because the deed and Frederick’s will predate EPIC’s effective date and because its application would affect an “accrued right.” We disagree. EPIC specifically “applies to a governing instrument executed by a decedent dying after [April 1, 2000, as long as it does not] impair an accrued right. . . .” MCL 700.8101(2)(a) and (d). Further, “[a] rule of construction ... provided in this act applies to a governing instrument executed before [April 1, 2000] unless there is a clear indication of a contrary intent.” MCL 700.8101(2)(e). Thus, EPIC applies to a governing instrument executed before EPIC came into effect, as long as it does not affect an accrued right and as long as the governing instrument does not contain a contrary intent. See Temple Marital Trust,
The governing instrument here, be it Frederick’s will or the deed, was created before EPIC became effective, but neither instrument contains an explicit intent that EPIC should not apply. There is no mention in either instrument that
C. DOES EPIC’S 120-HOUR RULE APPLY?
At the outset, we note that the 120-hour rule, or simultaneous-death provision, is not new to Michigan probate law. Its origin is related to the problematic administration of the common-law rule that an heir or devisee had to survive the testator by only an instant in order to receive a donative transfer under the testator’s will. 1 Restatement Property, 3d, Wills and Other Donative Transfers, § 1.2, pp 32-33. Administration of this common-law concept became problematic in the early twentieth century when vehicular accidents resulting in simultaneous deaths became more common. Id. at 33. Thus, in the context of simultaneous deaths, some new rule was necessary to ensure that each decedent’s property passed to his or her heirs and avoid the expense of double probate administration. Id. Michigan first adopted a survival requirement in 1941, see Uniform Simultaneous Death Act,
In Michigan, the 120-hour survival requirement did not always apply to nonprobate transfers, such as joint estates with rights of survivorship. In re VanConett Estate,
Appellant asserts that EPIC’s 120-hour rule is inapplicable because (1) a “contrary intention” exists, embodied in Frederick’s will, see MCL 700.2701, and (2) an exception to the 120-hour rule applies, see MCL 700.2702(4).
1. MCL 700.2701
The provisions appellant relies on, MCL 700.2701 and MCL 700.2702, are in EPIC’s article II (regarding intestacy, wills, and donative transfers) part 7 (regarding rules of construction applicable to governing instruments). MCL 700.2701 provides:
In the absence of a finding of a contrary intention, the rules of construction in this part control the construction of a governing instrument. The rules of construction in this part apply to a governing instrument unless the application of a particular section is limited by its terms to a specific type of provision or governing instrument. [Emphasis added.]
MCL 700.1104(k) defines “governing instrument” as used in EPIC to mean
a deed; will; trust; insurance or annuity policy; account with POD [pay on death] designation; security registered in beneficiary form (TOD [transfer on death]); pension, profit-sharing, retirement, or similar benefit plan; instrument creating or exercising a power of appointment or a power of attorney; or dispositive, appointive, or nominative instrument of any similar type. [Emphasis added.]
Clearly, EPIC defines “governing instrument” broadly. The term includes both a will and a deed. MCL 700.2701 is plain and unambiguous. It indicates that the rules of construction articulated in part 7 of EPIC, as they pertain to governing instruments, will not apply if the relevant governing instrument contains a contrary intent. Thus, there must be some explicit recognition in that instrument that EPIC will not apply. This intent may be manifested, for example, by a specific directive that EPIC does not apply or that other rules apply, such as those articulated in the former Revised Probate Code or in another state’s probate code. In this case, neither the deed nor the will, nor any other instrument, declares such a contrary intent. Both instruments are silent on the matter. Thus, MCL 700.2701 does not function to preclude application of part 7 of EPIC, which includes the simultaneous-death provision articulated in MCL 700.2702.
2. MCL 700.2702
The section immediately following MCL 700.2701 is EPIC’s simultaneous-death provision. MCL 700.2702(3), provides, in relevant part:
Except as provided in subsection (4), if it is not established, by clear and convincing evidence that 1 of 2 co-owners with right of survivorship survived the other co-owner by 120 hours, 1h of the co-owned property passes as if 1 had survived by 120 hours and 1h as if the other had survived by 120 hours. If there are more than 2 co-owners and it is not established by clear and convincing evidence that at least 1 of them survived the others by 120 hours, the property passes in the proportion that 1 bears to the whole number of co-owners. For the purposes of this subsection, “co-owners with right of survivorship” includes joint tenants, tenants hy the entireties, and other co-owners of property or accounts held under circumstances that entitles 1 or more to the whole of the property or account on the death of the other or others. [Emphasis added.]
MCL 700.2702(4) provides a list of exceptions to the general rule established in MCL 700.2702(3). It states:
Survival by 120 hours is not required under any of the following circumstances:
(a) The governing instrument contains language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths or deaths in a common disaster and that language is operable under the facts of the case. Language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths includes language in a governing instrument that creates a presumption that applies if the evidence is not sufficient to determine the order of deaths.
(b) The governing instrument expressly indicates that an individual is not required to survive an event, including the death of another individual, by any specified period or expressly requires the individual to survive the event by a specified period. Survival of the event or the specified period, however, must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
(c) The imposition of a 120-hour requirement of survival would cause a nonvested property interest or a power of appointment to fail to qualify for validity under section 2(l)(a), (2)(a), or (3)(a) of the uniform statutory rule against perpetuities,1988 PA 418 , MCL 554.72, or to become invalid under section 2(l)(b), (2)(b), or (3)(b) of the uniform statutory rule against perpetuities,1988 PA 418 , MCL 554.72.
(d) The application of a 120-hour requirement of survival to multiple governing instruments would result in an unintended failure or duplication of a disposition. Survival, however, must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Thus, under these limited, articulated circumstances, the 120-hour rule is inapplicable.
Because there is no evidence in the present case demonstrating that Frederick survived Barbara by more than 120 hours — and appellant identifies no such evidence on appeal, in the record or otherwise, and makes no argument relating to the substance of this issue — the 120-hour rule applies and one-half of the Mackinaw City property vested in Barbara’s estate, unless appellant can substantiate that one of the exceptions in MCL 700.2702(4) is applicable. The only exception that appellant argues is applicable is MCL 700.2702(4)(d). However, we disagree. While this case does involve multiple governing instruments— Frederick’s 1974 will and the 1996 deed — we are not of the view that application of the 120-hour rule would
Accordingly, appellant has failed to show that any of the exceptions to the 120-hour rule are applicable. The trial court did not err by applying the 120-hour rule to the present circumstances. And because clear and convincing evidence does not show that Frederick survived Barbara by 120 hours or more, the Mackinaw City property is properly divided between their respective estates consistently with MCL 700.2702(3).
D. DID THE PROBATE COURT APPLY THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF?
Finally, we also reject appellant’s last argument that the probate court applied the incorrect standard of proof. Appellant takes issues with the court’s written statement in its August 20 order, which stated, “There is no clear and convincing evidence that Frederick Deland Leete, III, survived Barbara R. Leete by 120 hours . ...” However, appellants’s allegation takes the probate court’s statement out of context. The clear and convincing evidentiary burden is mandated by MCL 700.2702(1), which provides, in part: “[A]n individual who is not established by clear and convincing evidence to have survived an event, including the death of another individual, by 120 hours is considered to have predeceased the event.” This provision establishes a party’s burden of proof with regard to the 120-hour rule. Thus, when the probate court’s order is read as a whole, it means that appellant failed to bring forth any clear and convincing evidence, as required by the statute, that would create a question of fact, when viewed in a light most favorable to appellant, that Frederick survived Barbara by 120 hours. There is no indication in the probate court’s August 20 order that it applied the incorrect standard of proof. The trial court properly-granted summary disposition in appellee’s favor.
Affirmed.
Notes
The exact time Barbara and Frederick were discovered is unclear. The police report indicates that the event was reported about 1:40 p.m.
The year 2008 was a leap year and, thus, the dates between Barbara’s and Frederick’s deaths included February 28 and 29, and March 1, 2, and 3. The longest length of time possible between Barbara’s and Frederick’s deaths would be 117 hours and 10 minutes. This calculation assumes that Barbara died at the earliest time possible on February 28, i.e., immediately after the day began at midnight.
The “clear and convincing” evidence standard in the context of the simultaneous-death provision was newly included under EPIC. Compare former MCL 700.107 and former MCL 700.132 with MCL 700.2702. This evidentiary burden serves to resolve doubtful questions in favor of nonsurvival and better serves the decedent’s intent that his or her property pass to heirs and only to persons who can personally benefit from it. 1 Restatement, § 1.2, p 35.