Court Opinion

ID: 9655554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:15:23.559296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:19.970109
License: Public Domain

Schuette, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse and remand this case to the probate court. However, I respectfully dissent regarding the applicability of MCL 700.8101(2)(d) of the Estates and Protected Individual’s Code (epic), and this Court’s ruling in In re Smith Estate, 252 Mich App 120; 651 NW2d 153 (2002), to the facts in this case.
The facts of In re Smith Estate involved an evidentiary issue of whether a handwritten document was evidence of testamentary intent of the deceased or simply a desire to make a monetary gift in the future. This Court held that a devise under a will was not a vested or an accrued right. As a result, the Smith decision did not trigger the limiting provisions of MCL 700.8101(2)(d) regarding the general prohibition against self-dealing as set forth in MCL 700.1214.
Here, I believe that the prohibition against self-dealing (MCL 700.1214) is not superseded by the application of MCL 700.8101(2)(d) because no accrued or vested right exists under the facts and circumstances of this case. See In re Smith Estate, supra.
Therefore, on remand, MCL 700.8101(2)(d) should not be applied by the probate court during its review, and MCL 700.1214 should be applied to the facts of this case.