Court Opinion

ID: 9378372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 06:05:27.548272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.716669
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                             COURT OF APPEALS

JENNIFER WEBSTER, Personal Representative of                         UNPUBLISHED
the ESTATE OF DESIREE CHASE,                                         March 9, 2023

               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 359534
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
STARFISH FAMILY SERVICES, JENAI                                      LC No. 20-004689-NH
WILLIAMS, M.S.W., ANGELA BRENZ, M.S.W.,
MARISA FARINACCI NICELY, M.S.W.,
NAIMAH ADDIE JEFFERSON, M.S.W., KIRSTEN
MACK, CHRISTINA FAY GRIM, L.L.P., DAVID
CARDINAL, JR., JESSICA BRZYS, SHIRLY
MORGAN, STACY WOODS, GLORIA GIBSON,
and SIEGLINDE LINDY HENDRICKS,

               Defendants,
and

JAMES CHASE, JR.,

               Appellant.

Before: RICK, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ.

M. J. KELLY, J. (concurring).

        I concur with the majority and write separately to explain specifically why I cannot
conclude that the trial court committed clear error by failing to award appellant, James Chase, Jr.,
any of the proceeds from the wrongful death settlement.

        The distribution of the proceeds in this case is governed by statute and is before us as a
result of wrongful death of Desiree Chase, who was seventeen years of age when she tragically
died of a drug overdose. She was a troubled young woman who had a mother and father as well
as other family members. The record, as I read it, shows without question that she was loved by

                                                -1-
her family and I have no doubt that they are all in sorrow and have suffered the loss of her society
and companionship.

        While Chase did not have custody of Desiree and may have been absent from portions of
her life, I believe it would be unjust to denounce him as a “dead-beat dad” or say that he had no
relationship with her. He did. There were ups and downs, frustrations and disappointments as is
the case with nearly every parent/child relationship. One need not be crowned “Father-of-the-
Year” in order to have suffered the loss of society and companionship of their deceased child.

        If the trial court had been asked to make a fair and just distribution based upon the facts
and circumstances as presented to the court at the contested hearing on the distribution of the
proceedings and awarded Chase zero, I would conclude that that was clear error. But that is not
what happened. Chase originally pleaded that he was entitled to 50% of the distribution and then
increased that figure to 75%. He stuck to this 75% demand in his pleadings filed in this Court.
And a demand it was. As noted by the majority, his appellant lawyer was asked directly during
the oral argument in this Court if it was his position that the trial court committed clear error by
not awarding Chase 75% of the proceeds and he responded affirmatively.

        Thus, the question before us is not whether the court committed clear error by awarding
Chase zero. Rather, the question is whether the trial court clearly erred by not awarding him 75%
of the settlement proceeds. To this, I conclude that the award was not clearly erroneous and I join
the majority in affirming the trial court.

                                                             /s/ Michael J. Kelly

                                                -2-