Court Opinion

ID: 9742033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:37.410648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.948312
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, C. J.,
(concurring). I agree with my Brother Lindemer that the trial judge did not commit reversible error by his statements at the close of plaintiffs’ proofs and that the absence of consideration did not invalidate the conveyance.
I also agree that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on the question of undue influence. I write separately because I do not think it necessary nor wise for the Court to discuss in this case the evidentiary effect to be given a presumption once contradictory evidence has been introduced. The settled law in Michigan on this question, as it pertains to a jury trial, is set forth in In re Wood Estate, 374 Mich 278; 132 NW2d 35 (1965).
The only concern this reviewing Court should have in this judge-tried case is whether we would reach a different result after an independent review of the entire record. I would not, and therefore I concur in affirmance.