*1 374 30 disposed legislature permitted to be tbe
value (Stat orally. § Ann Rev 1948, See CL [76]). § 27.3178 may be taxed. Costs
Reversed. J.,C. and Kelly, Dethmers, Black, Kavanagh, concurred. Adams, JJ., and O’Hara, Smith, v. WIEMEYER.
RENDLE
Judgment—Default—Parties.
1.
against non-
judgment
properly be entered
A default
in a
nonanswering original
cross-defendants
appearing
and
or
by way
accounting, partition,
involving
relief
ease
complexities
situation
land,
where
quieting title to
justice
proofs in
require
order to do
presentment
of full
parties, appearing or not.
rights
liabilities
all
Estates—Remainders.
Wills—Construction—Life
'2.
life,
all his
to his wife
whereby
left
testator
Will
children,
them,
“in
for their
naming
shares
thén to his
death,
lifetime,
during
and after
their
support,
use and
my grandchildren in
property of
it shall become
(cid:127)[2,
¡[13] 3
'[11]
¡[7-10,12,16]
’[14]
![15]
J[20]
[1]
[17,18]
[5]
[19]
[3,
Right
What
6]
4]
tenant
30A
ment,
32: (CL 1948, class, entrance to the a vested 554.13). § 9; Termination of Remainderman Prior to Same—Death Precedent Life Estate. living grandchild at testa- possibility remainderman that a thereafter, might the termi- die or born prior tor’s death prevent precedent life estates does nation of the n 1948, 554.13). (CL taking, vested estate from a remainderman Open. Subject Remainder Same—Vested subject subject open A to devise vested remainder children, a since it includes descent to the remainderman’s remainderman, certainty becoming present interest of the thing heirs, devisees, aifeeted as to some share continuing present as 'to such share to be
thereafter. 11. Wills—Construction—Intent. goal .sought 'to effectuated Intent of the testator is the courts, precedential construing will, pertinent within when statutory limits. . *3 Capita 12. Estates—Vested Per Remainder. Life Same—Joint personal property, follow- of all his real and Testator’s devise children, to his 5 named ing life to his wife and estates equal of an “grandchildren in effected a devise shares” per capita upon in a basis grandchildren on remainder estates, precedent where there was life the termination joint tenancy although life of the es- express no declaration view',' joint tenancy as in is construed a in children tate the (CL 1948, testamentary language respect thereto of with the 554.44). § 13. Life Estates—Remainderman—Possession. remainderman;' possession is a not adverse to A life tenant’s Entry—Life Actions—Right 14. Real of Tenants. grandchildren entry who had been right testator’s of of upon 5' granted in death of testator’s fee title remainder a preceding tenant children, of the last life accrued death n having right entry property, in such interest an 5-year years, being limited to a within 15 exercised 609.1). (CL 1948, period Judgment—Res Judicata—Parties. 15. involving -than in deteimination between Judgment action others way by par- relief parties' instant suit which included to judicata quieting res issues title was not to- tition and ,, , . herein. . ReNDLE Vi WlEMEYER. Subject Remainder Estates—Grandchildren’s Wills—Life 16/ Open—Testing. to personal in. all his real and devised a life estate Testator who life, joint for a in his 5 property his wife estate to “grand- children, upon the death of his children to his shares,” subject open a to in vested grandchildren, upon termination of the life estates but capita a grandchildren per interest rather than had premises. per stirpes interest Appeal Error—Partition—Questions Reviewable—Quiet- ing Title. seeking partition proceedings bill to include in Dismissal of cross acquired by plaintiff property had been cross at tax which quiet prejudice, title her is affirmed without sale and to proceeding partial for further is remanded after where cause partition phase proceeding. judgment Judgment—Compromise and Settlement. 18. Same—Partial by way judgment accounting, in suit wherein relief Partial sought quieting partition, and title was is affirmed as modified earnestly parties reminded and cause remanded with equities that have re- work out a settlement of' upwards will of died of a half sulted from testator who century ago expressed a of his and who wish none chil- trouble in dren or should “make court.” Rehearing. Application for On Tenancy—Life Deed.- Joint Estate—Effect Quitclaim joint quitclaim deed 1 of 5 tenants in a life A .her joint joint tenancy brother and sister tenants severed ' respeet grantor, granteés with and' the'' remarked' as joint respect an tenants with the-devised undivided 4/5'of tenants, becoming life interest while term eomnirai the. of, grantor’s life for the undivided tp accrued 1/5 them the deed. Estate—Possessory Life Interest. 20'. Partition—-Joint involving partition prematurely brought by suit was not Present *4 grandchildren of testator who left life his had estate to wife, joint children, life estate to his 5 and remainder to grandchildren, by reason of the fact that of the children living, conveyed still was where such child had her interest joint tenants, other life all 4 of the whom were dead before commenced, seeking partition suit was since parties' had tlirough possessory parents, estates to an interest which by the death measured and terminate would be grantor. joint life tenant J.), J. Submitted Weipert, (William Monroe; Jr. Appeal from 50,368.) 63, No. Decided February 7, (Calendar No. Docket 2, 1965, opinion, February see Rehearing denied 2, November page 47. against Sliker Mildred by Rendle John C. Rendle and Viola Bill for named, unknown, and unnamed defendants Wiemeyer and other Cross to remaindermen. accounting bill garner, partition of lands devised and for Hoopin- Evelyn Rendle, Sylvia Clark, Rendle by Helen by Helen bill Rendle, Rendle, and cross and Lois Clarence similarly parcels de- quiet other to that and certain Rendle to vised cross-plaintiffs further title judgment plaintiffs. Defendants for property. Partial modified, for appeal. Affirmed, as and remanded proceedings. Heady JBraunlich, plaintiffs. # Satovsky, eross-plaintiffs. Abraham for defendants and land, 38.80 case involves acres This J. O’Hara, in 1909 which arose and rights 25 parties litigant, a partial judgment extent under to some adjudicated 3, 1963. entered May alleged include an violation legal issues of the absolute suspension
statute1 prohibiting
legal
2 lives
beyond
being;
of alienation
power
1917; the
had in
efficacy
proceedings
partition
inter-
by
summary;
limitation
the pretrial
of issues
per
or
per capita
ests in
as affected
descent
realty
com-
creation of
estates
stirpes;
alleged
or
“joint” right
mon with a so-called
possession
a few miscellaneous
joint tenancy;
estates in
from
for de-
arising
application
snarls
procedural
on bills and cross bills.
judgments
fault
to the refusal of
trial court
With reference
judgments
against nonappearing
enter default
nonanswering original
nonappearing
defendants
at
cross-defendants, we decline
nonanswering
time to
The case
presents
interfere therewith.
(Stat
;
26.15),
CL
Ann
in effect
1847 to
from
§
repealed
(effective
23, 1949);
September
PA
No 38
and see
Cook,
Lantis v.
proposition is sufficient to indicate compounding legal confusion to follow. happened It all way. seems to have John Rendle part, died testate 1909. His will read, as follows: give, bequeath “II. I my property devise and all personal property both real and to Harriette Rendle,
my support during wife for her her natural life time. “III. right Also she shall have the sell and dis- pose my personal of all property part any my real estate pay that she deem best to on debts * * * real estate. [IV] my “lili. After Harriette Rendle wife’s my property personal death both real and shall be- long my children Catherine M. Sliker, Sidney Mary Rendle, J. A. Rendle Lawrence, Lenard H. Rendle and Leona M. Rendle in shares for support, during their use and their lifetime, after my it death, shall become the shares.” though As sufficiently the late Mr. Rendle had not complicated things, paragraph he added another (the IIIII same variation of Roman numerals-as. ad- this stern apparently) contained above' his heirs: monition grandchildren should any my “If my in court last will in this trouble or make
contest he or *6 or her share.” for his she will have but $5.00 an’ poet o’ mice noted “the best-laid schemes As the Despite agley.” well- gang Mr. Rendle’s aft men litigation, plans the matter avoid intentioned probate through stormy voyage after a before us plan installment since courts, and circuit on Upon wife, Harriett the testator’s daughter, death Mary instituted Lawrence, 1916, Alma county probate proceedings partition in Monroe ownership property in- recited court. She an children. Either over- volved the Rendle par- inexplicable sight, reason, the for some other petition estate, to the life tition omitted reference was to in whom the title vest and the children were not the death of Rendle’s John parties. made present complicate additionally in the
To matters adjudication, daughters, in Leona, one of testator’s by quitclaim conveyed her interest to her 1917, deed sisters. She had who survive brothers' present. appointed, ordered, Partition was commissioners report May and their made and confirmed purported property among It to divide the 4 Mary children with 29.10acres each to Catherine and Sidney Alma and 19.40 acres each to Leonard. Again no reference is made to the life estates. With existing January, situation C. John grandchild and a Rendle, remainderman of the tes- naming and his wife this action tator, commenced 3 sisters, his all his cousins, defendants 7 second Mouse.—Reportee. 2 Burns, To Wiemeyer. (if cousins, children of a cousin, deceased their wives any), known or unknown. allege
Plaintiffs in interest to he the township property. south 38.80 acres the Bedford parcels “partitioned” These are 2 each, acres Sidney, in 1917to his father, uncle, his Leonard. they Plaintiffs aver that and certain of the defend- parcels ants became entitled to these on the death (probably 1956) Sidney, being of his father, he the last survivor of the life estate class children. alleged
It further that his Helen sister, Rendle, possession has been in of the north 19.40 acres since Sidney’s death and that cousin, Clarence, son possessed Leonard Rendle, has the south 19.40acres. pray accounting profits Plaintiffs an of rents and premises proceeds and a sale of the for division of among those entitled. appeared Syl- who
Defendants and answered are *7 Evelyn, plaintiff via, Helen, and Rendle, and sisters of John C. By his cousin. Clarence, answer these deny right plaintiffs. defendants relief to ownership Plaintiff claim husband’s sisters partitioned Sidney, by 19.40 acres to their father, leaving Sidney’s premises virtue of will the to his leaving wife and the latter her will it to the 3 They plead (5 sisters. the statute of limitations invalidity years), estoppel, of the ancestor’s will as of a remainder to viola creation suspending power to tive of the rule relative the alienation. Clarence, as to the south 19.40 acres
Cousin de- grounds, alleging also that fends on much same Leonard, died, his heirs were father, when sole conveyed former widow and himself and that the to her interest son. (Stat 27.593).—Reporter. Ann CL See § answering cross bills file defendants these All parcels respective be
asking to these that title anyone against appear, quieted interests as their else. Evelyn Sylvia, also and Helen,
The cross bills of picture bring north 58.20 attempt into contending question, that if acres of the any acres parcel granted, should be partition the whole be nonappearing non- defaulted Plaintiffs included. answering Cross-plaintiffs defaulted defendants. nonanswering nonappearing cross-defendants. party point anyone not a hereto still If this supple- opinion, reading made to a reference is genealogy page out the sets hereof which utilized mental the by Mazo la Roche in the de manner and Peace. It or Tolstoi War mentioned novels, Whiteoak that all and if the bills further should considered the whole west to be were bills cross quarter some section would be to de- acres 97 gree complaint plaintiffs’ limits However, involved. salutary 38.80acres and the south controlling reads: pretrial statement and raised counsel * * * “Counsel trial and complexity can thereafter shall framed represent be conclusive expedite of the issues [by frame new or additional that because same. brief in the sense they [*] * answering brief] desire to of the number [*] shorten neither issues legal issues.” through designated and G-, A
These issues clarity them treated with attention court refer- his form with some will follow We seriatim. appellants’ brief: claimed error from ence *8 grand- remainder created a vested “A. Was by his 1909 will?” of testator John complexities may have answer that whatever We thing by is clear will, created the testator’s been one "Wiembyer. Bundle v. —it was his intent to vest title in fee to the residue personal, grandchildren, estate, real and in his per capita per stirpes: either my my prop- “After Harriette B>endle wife’s death erty personal belong my both real and shall chil- * * * [naming them] dren shares for support, during their use and lifetime, their property my death, it shall become the after grandchildren plied.) (Emphasis sup- shares.” phraseology As the trial eourt observed, the ambiguous.” “recondite, neither involved or It a created life estate the ancestor’s wife, estate in the remainder thereof in his children, and realty (realistically per vested title to the no sonalty involved) grandchildren. in his See ( Quarton v. Barton, 249 474, 475, Mich 477 69 ALR 820), key ambiguous where the in an words instru despite ment were held to be “for her lifetime” provision contradictory somewhat sees “to with do as she fit.” grand-
The intent of at testator, least as to the representation being children whether or not, question clear, the next is: Is the instrument void suspension power reason of the of aliena- tion! answer as did the trial court. It not, We was authority on the of Felt Methodist Educational Advance, Mich 168. This Court there removed question any arising from inharmonious earlier de- cisions : question “The decisions of this eourt are not harmonious. opinions It would be fruitless to diseuss them or the of other courts. Our later cases hold that the devise of a estate elass col-
lectively only, ‘longest creates an estate for one life that of the liver’ elass, determining and is to be so taken in period suspension supra, power (Felt, 171.) p of alienation.” power The classes first wife to whom the denied; of alienation was children, the second class was the similarly These were the 2 restrained. *9 stat- The in the grandchildren. and title lives, vested not violated. was applicable4 here ute clear and his testa- intent was testator’s Since the will not valid, we discuss instrument was mentary of 1917. proceedings at length “partition” any citation to conclude supporting It needs hardly what partition could not proceedings that as to were void They thereto did not have. parties no in the second title the remaindermen vested reason For the same basic class of life tenants. sisters, her who brothers Leona, quitclaimed to interest of could not defeat thereby her children. whether, irrespective issue of come next to the
We
partition proceed-
order entered
of the
created life estates
the will of the ancestor
ing,
It
his children.
among
or in common
tenancy
joint
in common, upon
that
the estates were
if
argued
is
(grand-
his or her children
child,
of each
the death
immediate
right
had an
testator)
children of the
of the
Contrari-
parent.
as to the
share
entry
1/5
as each
tenancy
in joint
if the life
were
wise,
estates
her share devolved
died, his or
child of the testator
death
only
life tenants
surviving
right
tenant of the class did the
of the last life
accrue.
entry to
remainderman
any
held that while the chil-
trial court in effect
The
in common as to
dren of the testator were tenants
will created was
which the
another,
one
the estate
all
extent that
“joint” in nature to the
thereto
right
possession
entitled to
“joint”
all.
It must
remem-
lifetime of them
be
during the
now with
situation
could
that we deal
bered
54 years ago.
reasonably
anticipated
but if
issue,
confuses the
acres
here involved
more
“120 acres
the whole
regarded
parcel
CL
§ 554.15
(Stat Ann
26.15).
(Since
repealed.)'
Wiemeyeb.
.1964]
(cid:127)Rendle
entered
residue
assigning
the order
(cid:127)or less”
in their
with
will dealt
ancestor’s
probate
n entirety
words:
these
*
* *
hereby
be and
less,
acres more
“120
her
the term of
Harriett Rendle
assigned
* * * [the
after her death
life, and
natural
*10
sup-
use and
for
them]
naming
children
testator’s
of
shares
lifetime
during their
port
1/5
n each,
chil-
respective
their
their death to
and after
will,”
dren, according to the
easily understood.
a little more
is
problem
a
of
sort
envisioned
apparently
Grandfather
not,
long
which was
as
of 120
baronial estate
acres
n as
to
cut up.
possible,
and we
provided,
quote again:
Mr. Rendle’s will
all
bequeath
my property
“II. I
devise and
give,
Rendle,
to Harriette
personal
and
property
both real
my
wife for her
her natural
support during
* * *
time.
. “IIIL
my
my
After Harriette Rendle
wife’s death
both real and
shall
to
property
personal
belong my
Sliker,
Catherine M. Rendle
J.
Sidney
Rendle,
Lawrence,
A. Rendle
Lenard H.
Mary
Rendle and Leona M. Rendle in
shares
lifetime,
their use and
after their
and
support, during
death,
my
it
shall become the
grandchildren in equal shares.”
testator’s death his
Thus, upon
'
remainders
in fee
sub-
simple
vested
devised
is
undoubtedly
A.remainder
vested
ject
to open.
or, as
persons,
it
to ascertained
given
when
is
more of whom
one or
(grandchildren)
to a
case,
class
when it is not
ascertained,
and
existence
to
precedent
enjoyment
to
condition
subject
any
of an intermediate
or pre-
than termination
other
life estates
tes-
(here
precedent
cedent estate
vested
.5 A remainder
sub-
children)
tator’s wife and
purports
(Stat
§ 26.13),
Ann 1957
to
CL
Rev
[Nov.-
members
in ascertained
initially
jeet
open
to
vests
sense,
entire
in a
representatives,
a class
the class
subsequently entering
those
class,
thus
class,
to tbe
upon
to
entrance
have,
also be said
Smith,
Future
1 Simes
remainder.6
a vested
See
that a
possibility
ed,
(2d
1956), §
Interests
death
at testator’s
living
remainderman
grandchild
termina-
prior
die
might
thereafter
or born
estates does not prevent
of the precedent
tion
estate.
from
vested
See
taking
the remainderman
Holmes,
Mich
117. Nor does the
Holmes open
mean it is
subject
fact that the
other than termina-
precedent
a condition
subject
estates,
it “includes
cer-
since
tion of
precedent
[of
remain-
becoming
present
tainty
as to some
share
derman,
devisees]
his heirs
*
* *
continuing
and of
thing
in the affected
contingent
future
distinguish
vested and
estates:
“Future
between
contingent: They are
when
to the
vested
there
are either vested
estates
right
pos-
being
have an immediate
person
who would
ais
eeasin-g
precedent
o-r
lands,
intermediate
session
*11
whom,
They
contingent
person
whilst
to
the
are
the
estate.
event
they
upon
are limited to tafee effect remains uncertain.”
which
utility,
general
grants,
for
not one of
devises
distinction is
The
may
hypothesized
be
bequests
characterized as
can be
and
depending upon
contingent
which sentence of section 554.13
vested
one
cases
ambiguity
progeny
applies
The inevitable
of sueh
are
to them.
Consider, fo-r
reaching
on similar facts.
ex
dissimilar results
living;
not,
life,
W
N if
is
if
to J.”
If
ample, “To
then to
she
statute,
the
sentence of the
re
on the second
attention
focused
person
might
contingent
be characterized as
since the
to
mainder
whom
go
long
as
W
will
remains uncertain
as
N
the remainder
and
Case,
But, by focusing
Lambertson v.
245
208.
at
See
Mich
live.
remainder
be
to be
on the first sentence the
said
vested
tention
defeasance)
(although subject
N
to
because either
or J will have an
right
possession upon
of
estate.
to
termination W’s
See
immediate
MeInerny Haase, 163
v.
Mich
light
general
Realistically,
no succinct
rule
of
statute
classifying
posited
Perhaps
all remainders.
may
the
as
basis for
be
approach
problem
exposition
the
useful
of
feasible
to
most
Smith,
(2d ed, 1956),
and
Future
in
Interests
appears
Simes
§
grandchildren of
fact
after-born
testator
received a
The
that
them,
significant
Sliker,
because one
joint
Newman
remainder
vested
children,
in
termination
the
life estate
testator’s
died before
vested,
leaving
Newman’s remainder was
seven children. Sinee
it
subject
to
children.
devise or descent
those
to
was
Wiemeyer.
Bendle
thereafter,
share
present
to such
interest as
abe
precedent
subject to a condition
while
includes
2 Bestate-
certainties.”
of these
neither
Property, §
m.
(1936),
157,comment
ment
always our
which it is
testator,
of the
intent
precedential
pertinent
goal
within
to effectuate
Atchinson, Mich
statutory
Johnson v.
limits,
clearly
all of
him to be that
stated
299-301, was
equally
grandchildren
in
re
the
to share
were
his
language
provided
apodictic
By
he
mainder estate.
joint
in his
life estate
of the
that after termination
n,7
go
grandchil
property
towas
to his
his
childre
per stirpes
A
distribution
“in
shares.”
dren
accomplish this.
not
would
nothing in the will or the record
Moreover, there is
to favor
that testator intended
us to indicate
before
grandchildren
would
set,
another
as
set
over
one
(Stat
26.44), provides:
Ann 1957 Rev
CL
§
lands,
persons,
grants
made to
or more
“Ail
and devises of
two
section,
provided
following
construed to
except
be
as
shall
expressly
common,
joint
tenancy,
and not
unless
create estates
joint tenancy.”
be in
declared to
Admittedly
expressly
that his
Mr. Rendle’s will does not
declare
joint
tenants,
“expressly”
if
to take as
one moans use
children are
“joint
tenancy”. However,
only way
give
to
rational
of the words
in-
all of the
is to eonstrue the children’s
effect to
terests as
terms of the will
being joint.
realty
being granted
speaks
The will
as
lifetime,
support, during their
for “their
to the children
use
death,
my grandchildren
it shall
after
in
become
pronoun
repeated
shares.” The
use of the collective
“their” is
realty
of the testator’s
intent
that
be distributed
to
indicative
the
only
grandchildren
of all
How-
the death
of his children.
ever,
common, upon
if the children
as tenants
each child’s
took
immediately be
to take their
re-
death his children would
mainder
entitled
interest,
only
but
in their ancestor’s
of the total estate.
share
Thus,
hold that
the children were tenants in common would mean
eventually
express command,
realty
the testator’s
that
was
equal shares,”
“in
to be distributed
his
would
vitiated.
' Bearing
oft-expressed
in mind
our
desire
effectuate the intent
testator,
expressed
will,
possible,
Johnson
whenever
Atchinson, supra,
though
“joint
we
even
tenan
v.
cy”
hold that
expressly,
the words
employed
testamentary
nonetheless
intent
clearly enough apparent
is here
as to overcome the
of the testator
statutory preference
so
*12
Kemp
Sutton,
in
Schmidt,
eommon. See
v.
tenancies
249, 258,
7;
233 Mich
and Block v.
Mich
61
but
Caswell,
.
.
Smith v.
So partial judgment that which we now affirm: “1. a valid remainder interest was created That grandchildren Rendle. of John “2. will of was not That the John Rendle void suspension power of the reason of the of alienation. partition proceedings “3. That of the Monroe- probate January county court of 12, 1917, did not terminate vested remaindermen’s interest the- according reat estate vested them to will and probate assigning order of the court the residue. “4. That the are not barred rights entry having statute of limitations, they after November, 1956, accrued had 15- years within which to act. per stirpes Under distribution the five children of Alma presumably Lawrence would each receive 1/25 only dispute, while the child of Leonard Rendle would receive 1/5 property. unlikely of that Prima facie this is an intent to ascribe to a testator. *13 ReNDLE V. WlEM'EYER. county chancery “5. That Monroe case No. 4695is judicata partition not res petition as to the issues in this quiet and cross hill to title.”9 per grandchild, capita, That each rather than per stirpes, premises, a has vested remainder the subject parti- are the matter of this tion suit.10 complaint seeking That bill of in- “7. the cross partition proceedings parcel pur-
clude in a these n chased scavenger plain- at a tax sale the State plaintiffs’ prayer tiffs, amended include parcel purchased by Helen Rendle at a State scav- enger prejudice.” tax sale be dismissed without (Emphasis supplied.) by appellants specifical- questions
Any not raised foregoing ly included in the items numbered and by necessary im- forth, set answered herein adjudicated plication therefrom are on re- hearing. manded opinion note with interest that the of the court
We partial judgment rendition of contains this statement: ruling “After counsel have considered court’s possible (emphasis on settlement”
(cid:127)and conferred supplied), plaintiffs reported that counsel for to the court transcript partial judgment: of motion for proposed partial judgment “I submitted to coun- approve entry.” sel and he was unable to it for appear foregoing It would from the that since the parties agree partial cannot even a form of a judgment, hope little abides for of all settlement candidly Quite varied claims. we remind the 9 A entirely controlling somewhat bat related collateral action not .of instant issues. 10This item has been modified.
parties litigant and their counsel neither the trial The nor turn court ourselves can back the clock.
subject matter is in lawsuit essence years ago. will of John who died 55 in- brought changes exorable march of time has relationship between his heirs in status property their acquired, relationship he to restore to and.in realistically one another that court can no *14 quo. complete equities No status and absolute can may profit. determined. suffer, be Some some grandfather’s express It was wish, as we noted of earlier, should the none his children or “make in trouble court.” We commend to all parties earnestly hoping this of testator, wish tangled equities that the that have become ensnarled years over the can be worked out fairness and finality. partial judgment
The is affirmed, entered as modi- proceedings. fied. The case is remanded for further Appellees may tax costs. J.,C. and Dethmers, Kavanagh, Kelly, Black, and Adams, JJ., concurred.
Souris, Smith,
GENEALOGY (1) Rendle, testate, C. John died 1909. (2) surviving Rendle, John, Harriett widow of died 1916. (3) Catherine Sliker. Died 1936. (4) Sidney Rendle. Died Mary (5) Alma Lawrence. Died 1950. (6) Rendle. Leonard Died 1951. (7) indicated, Sehlessman. Death conveyed any Leona hut she interest of hers in the hy deed, later mentioned (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (1) (2). are children of (8) Wiemeyer Mildred (9) Kinney (3). Hilda Children of j- (10) Newman Sliker j (8) (9) living were when this suit was (10) commenced. leaving died 7 children. (11) Sylvia Clark (IJ-aUhving. ChlMrmof Evelyn^Rendle (13) f (14) John C. Rendle J (14) plaintiffs and Ms wife aTe in this action. Wiemeyer. v.. . (15) Velma Hasen (16) Lawrenee | Melvin Wayne (5)—all living.
(17) Lawrence Children (18) Luttrell Verna Orlyss (19) (20) Venia (6). Clarence Rendle—Child of (21) j Harriett Schlessman (7)—all living. i- Children (22) Wilma Schlessman (23) William Schlessman j quoted here and as (Variations spelling the names noted.—Reporter.) in the will can por Rehearing. Application On ap an appellants ease filed J. After decision O’Hara, Schlessman, rehearing, one plication alleging that sinee Leona yet will, was not joint John Rendle’s life tenants under of the five will, barred from under that dead, appellees, remaindermen (Stat suit, eiting Ann 1962 Rev bringing CLS quitclaim The § 27A.3308).* is without merit. This contention (her sisters) joint tenants brothers and given Leona her deed in 1917 severed joint tenancy respect with to her. life joint relationship remained children ®f the testator other regard devised an undivided life tenants with life 4/5 of Leona’s interest, in common for the term and became tenants regard whieh aeerued to them virtue to the undivided with 1/5 Midgley Walker, Mich quitclaim deed. See of Leona’s 431), (45 there Since Leona had Rep Am and authorities cited. St conveyed estate, she the undivided interest which but a could endure 1/5 only long conveyed for as lived. as she undivided later their interest sisters Leona’s 1/5 appellants. Sidney Leonard, brothers, fathers to their regard then, With undivided This, is the situation: 4/5 *15 disputed lands, John C. the interest precedent joint estate, life estate in possessory since liave terminated, by eonveyanee to her Leona’s children has the testator’s and sisters. deaths those brothers and sisters and brothers lands, through appollants, in undivided interest As to the their 1/5 fathers, interest, have to this which will terminate succeeded upon Leona’s death. they bring prematurely, Therefore, appellees suit sinee did not possession “an in of which had the lands have and then estate partition pro- sought.” However, adjudicating partition is ceedings, the court will take into account value the undivided interest’s is measured whieh duration lands 1/5 life. Leona’s application rehearing Appellants’ for is denied. J., Black, Souris, Smith, Kavanagh, Dethmers, Kelly, C. Adams, JJ., concurred. * “Any person possession in the lands who has an estate partition partition sought may maintain claim lands, person only an in reversion hut who has estate those partition.” maintain a for their the lands claim