Court Opinion

ID: 9727810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:41.44678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.219704
License: Public Domain

W. A. Porter, J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The probate court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine an action brought by the estate to recover proceeds from the life insurance *609policy and the credit union account, allegedly obtained by Zella McNerney by undue influence.
The relevant statutes have been cited in the majority opinion but will be repeated here for ease of reading.
Appellant Noble, personal representative of the estate of William J. McNerney, deceased, bases her contention that the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the above upon § 22(l)(a), MCL 700.22(l)(a); MSA 27.5022(l)(a), which provides in pertinent part:
Except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the state constitution of 1963 or by statute to some other court, or where the probate court is denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state, in addition to the jurisdiction conferred by section 21 and other laws, the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction of any of the following when ancillary to the settlement of an estate of a decedent, ward, or trust:
(a) To determine the validity of and resolve claims involving title to real and personal property.
Appellee Zella McNerney argues that § 3(4), MCL 700.3(4); MSA 27.5003(4), excludes such litigation from the subject matter jurisdiction of the probate court when brought by an estate. The provision reads:
"Claim” in respect to estates of decedents, disappeared persons, minors, and legally incapacitated persons includes liabilities of the decedent, disappeared person, or ward, whether arising in contract, in tort, or otherwise, and liabilities of the estate which arise at or before the death of the decedent, .and funeral and burial expenses. Claim does not include estate and inheritance taxes, demands or disputes regarding title of a decedent, *610disappeared person, or ward to specific assets alleged to be included in the estate.
In the first sentence of § 3(4), "claim” deals with liabilities of the decedent or the estate. In the second sentence it is made clear that a "[c]laim does not include . . . disputes regarding title of a decedent ... to specific assets alleged to be included in the estate.”
Because of the second sentence of § 3(4), the claim by the appellant estate herein to the proceeds from the life insurance policy and the credit union account, allegedly obtained by appellee through undue influence, was not within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court provided by § 22(l)(a). The estate’s dispute, alleging title to the two assets, is specifically excluded from the definition of the word claim as used in § 22(l)(a), while a third party’s assertion or claim to an asset of an estate is not. The third party’s action to recover such assets would be an action with respect to liabilities of the decedent or the estate, therefore a claim under the first sentence of § 3(4) and not excluded under the second sentence. Such an action falls within § 22(l)(a) jurisdiction.
The Michigan Supreme Court said in Sam v Balardo, 411 Mich 405, 417-418; 308 NW2d 142 (1981):
In Jones v Grand Ledge Public Schools, 349 Mich 1, 9; 84 NW2d 327 (1957), this Court, in quoting Justice Cooley from the early case of People ex rel Twitchell v Blodgett, 13 Mich 127 (1865), reiterated the foremost rule of statutory construction:
"There are certain well-settled rules for the construction of statutes, which no court can safely disregard. Where the statute is plain and unambiguous in its terms, the courts have nothing to do *611but to obey it. They may give a sensible and reasonable interpretation to legislative expressions which are obscure, but they have no right to distort those which are clear and intelligible. The fair and natural import of the terms employed, in view of the subject matter of the law, is what should govern.”
The Court went on to say:
We reach the same conclusion. Once a statute has been declared unambiguous on its face, there is no room for further construction; legislative intent must be gleaned from the clear and explicit words of the statute. [411 Mich 418.]
See also Speers v City of Hazel Park, 131 Mich App 457; 346 NW2d 340 (1984), and Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Church, 150 Mich App 539; 389 NW2d 124 (1986).
A clear and unambiguous statute must be enforced by the court as written. Bannan v City of Saginaw, 420 Mich 376, 390; 362 NW2d 668 (1984); Sam v Balardo, supra, p 418; Sneath v Popiolek, 135 Mich App 17; 352 NW2d 331 (1984); In re Flynn, 130 Mich App 740; 344 NW2d 352 (1983).
It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that the reviewing court is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Hiltz v Phil’s Quality Market, 417 Mich 335; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). Words should generally be given their ordinary meanings. Goethal v Kent County Supervisors, 361 Mich 104; 104 NW2d 794 (1960). If the language of the statute is clear, it is assumed that the Legislature intended the plainly expressed meaning, and the statute must be enforced as written. Hiltz, supra, p 343. [Bailey v DAIIE, 143 Mich App 223, 225; 371 NW2d 917 (1985).]
The Supreme Court noted in Pioneer State Mu*612tual Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 417 Mich 590, 595; 339 NW2d 470 (1983):
"The most important rule, of course, is to discover and give effect to the legislative intent.
"The next rule is to derive the legislative intention from the actual language used in the statute. ... If the language used is clear and the meaning of the words chosen is unambiguous, a common-sense reading of the provision will suffice, and no interpretation is necessary.” In re Certified Questions, Karl v Bryant Air Conditioning Co, 416 Mich 558, 567; 331 NW2d 456 (1982).
More specifically, the Court of Appeals in Detroit v Muzzin & Vincenti, Inc, 74 Mich App 634, 639; 254 NW2d 599 (1977), lv den 400 Mich 858 (1977), stated:
Where, as here, a statute supplies its own glossary, courts may not import any other interpretation, but must apply the meaning of the terms as expressly defined.
See also McRaild v Shepard Lincoln Mercury, Inc, 141 Mich 406, 410; 367 NW2d 404 (1985); Noggles v Battle Creek Wrecking, Inc, 153 Mich App 363, 367; 395 NW2d 322 (1986).
Even were this writer convinced, as is the majority, that the Legislature had a different intent than expressed, the result would not be changed.
We are controlled by our quotation from Black on Interpretation of Laws (1st Ed.), p 36, in People v Lowell, 250 Mich 349, 359 [230 NW 202 (1930)]:
"Even though the court should be convinced that some other meaning was really intended by the lawmaking power, and even though the literal interpretation should defeat the very purpose of *613the enactment, still the explicit declaration of the legislature is the law, and the courts must not depart from it.” [Becker v Detroit Savings Bank, 269 Mich 432, 436; 257 NW 853 (1934).]
The duty of the courts is to interpret statutes as we find them. Melia v Employment Security Comm, 346 Mich 544, 561; 78 NW2d 273 (1956). A plain and unambiguous statute is to be applied, and not interpreted, since such a statute speaks for itself. Lansing v Lansing Twp, 356 Mich 641, 649; 97 NW2d 804 (1959). The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the Legislature beyond the words employed in the act. Id. Ordinary words are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Carter Metropolitan Christian Methodist Episcopal Church v Liquor Control Comm, 107 Mich App 22, 28; 308 NW2d 677 (1981). [Winiecki v Wolf, 147 Mich App 742, 744-745; 383 NW2d 119 (1985).]
Also see In re Contempt of Stone, 154 Mich App 121, 125; 397 NW2d 244 (1986).
Even though I am of the opinion that the statute is clear and unambiguous and therefore not subject to judicial interpretation or construction, in light of the majority’s perception of ambiguity, I will apply the familiar extrinsic aids for interpretation and construction when a statute is viewed as ambiguous. The application of such aids, as will be shown, leads emphatically to the conclusion that plaintiff-appellant’s action was not a claim and therefore the probate court had no jurisdiction to hear the same.
The Court of Appeals, on June 27, 1974, decided Hilliker v Dowell, 54 Mich App 249, 252; 220 NW2d 712 (1974), in which it held that the probate court did not have jurisdiction to determine questions of title. That case dealt with title to personal *614property. The Court also cited Ashbaugh v Sinclair, 300 Mich 673; 2 NW2d 810 (1942), in which the Court, while dealing with real property, felt that the probate court did not have the jurisdiction to decide upon vested rights thereto.
1974 PA 249 and 296 were approved August 1, 1974, and August 18, 1974, respectively. By § 19(l)(b) of such acts, being MCL 701.19(l)(b); MSA 27.3178(19)(l)(b), the probate court first obtained jurisdiction "[t]o determine the validity of and resolve claims involving title to real and personal property when the question of title [was] ancillary to the settlement of an estate.”
Laws are assumed to be enacted by the legislative body with some knowledge of and regard to existing laws upon the same subject and decisions by the court of last resort in reference to them. [Lenawee Co Gas & Electric Co v City of Adrian, 209 Mich 52, 64; 176 NW 590 (1920).]
See also People v Buckley, 302 Mich 12, 21; 4 NW2d 448 (1942).
It is a rule of statutory construction that amending legislation should be liberally construed so as to correct defects in previous statutes. People v Gould, 237 Mich 156, 163; 211 NW 346 (1926). Amended statutes should be interpreted in light of the rationale of court decisions which prompted the amendment. [Citation omitted. The E F McDonald Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 62 Mich App 626, 632; 233 NW2d 678 (1975).]
See also General Motors Corp v Michigan Employment Security Comm, 82 Mich App 99, 105; 266 NW2d 470 (1978); Brown v Shell Oil Co, 128 Mich App 111, 114; 339 NW2d 709 (1983).
Section 19(l)(b) of 1974 PA 249 and 296 can properly be viewed as a legislative response to *615Hilliker v Dowell, supra, and evidence of legislative intent to give the probate court jurisdiction over actions involving title to real and personal property.
Since there was no glossary or definitional section of the statute defining the word claim nor any other limitation placed on § 19(l)(b), the probate court was given jurisdiction to determine the validity of and resolve claims involving title to real and personal property. Whether or not the statute gave the probate court such jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the action was brought by or against the estate, was not answered by reference to the statute alone. However, as stated in In re Chamberlain’s Estate, 298 Mich 278, 285; 299 NW 82 (1941):
Where the language used has been subject to judicial interpretation, the legislature is presumed to have used particular words in the sense in which they have been interpreted.
The Chamberlain Court, at page 285, noted the prior judicial interpretation of the word claim:
In Re Quinney’s Estate, 287 Mich 329 [283 NW 599 (1939)], this court quoted with approval from Knutsen v Krook, 111 Minn 352 (127 NW 11 [1910]), and said:
"The word 'claims’ is 'by authorities generally construed as referring to demands of a pecuniary nature and which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime.’ ”
Section 19(l)(b), when read in light of the existing judicial interpretation of the word claim, was limited to actions brought against the estate.
Essentially, the same jurisdictional language described above was retained in the Revised Probate *616Code, 1978 PA 642, § 22(l)(a). However, the definition and, thus, limitation of what constituted a claim was added for the first time by § 3(4) of the revised code.
The addition of the restrictive definition of what constitutes a claim under § 3(4) clearly reflects a legislative intent to limit or clarify the limitation of the probate court’s jurisdiction under § 22(l)(a) to an action brought against the estate, "to determine the validity of and resolve claims involving title to real and personal property.”
The Legislature must have intended to change or clarify the statute by the addition of the restrictive definition of "claim.” To read the statute otherwise would be to void § 3(4) and to assume that the Legislature intended nothing by its addition of the section. Such an assumption is contrary to all established rules of statutory construction.
The statute is to be construed so as to give full force and effect, if possible, to all of its parts or provisions, and to every word, sentence and section, where this can be done without destroying the sense or effect of the law. Stowers v Wolodzko, 386 Mich 119, 133; 191 NW2d 355 (1971); People v Dziuba, 139 Mich App 789, 792; 363 NW2d 33 (1984). Again, such maxim requires the Court to read claim in a manner which precludes the probate court from exercising jurisdiction over a claim involving title to real or personal property brought by the estate. If the statute is read as the majority insists, the second sentence of § 3(4) is rendered meaningless.
The majority opinion says that § 22(1) is ambiguous because " '[claims’ could be the object of both infinitive phrases (to determine and [to] resolve) or could be the object of only the latter infinitive phrase.” In addition to the reasons heretofore set forth, claims is the object of both infinitive *617phrases. Claims is the object of the preposition "of’ because "involving title to real and personal property” is a participial phrase used as an adjective modifying claims. Therefore, claims is the only available noun to be the object of the preposition of. Since "involving title to real and personal property” is used as an adjective, it cannot be a noun required for the object of the preposition of. Thus, § 22(l)(a) must be read as meaning the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine the validity of claims involving title to real and personal property and to resolve claims involving title to real and personal property. Again, since claims is the only available noun to be the object of the preposition of, claims must be the object of the first infinitive phrase as well as the second. Thus, when read together with the definition of claims in § 3(4), it is clear that the estate may not bring such an action.
The majority perceives their decision as being consistent with In re Cain Estate, 147 Mich App 615, 623; 382 NW2d 829 (1985). Since Cain, supra, dealt with the filing of a claim to determine title to a disputed bank account by a third-party claimant other than the personal representative of the estate, it did not speak to the central issue of jurisdiction when the plaintiff is the estate alleging that specific assets are included in it. The case is not precedential support for either the majority or this dissenting opinion.
Finally, §22(4) of the Revised Probate Code, which expresses a policy "to simplify the probate of estates and the disposition of actions or proceedings involving estates of decedents ... by having the probate and other related actions or proceedings in the probate court,” is not inconsistent with the above and cannot by itself broaden the specifically defined probate court jurisdiction. The Re*618vised Probate Code does, in fact, accomplish those purposes and meet that policy. The policy language was enacted as part of the probate code at the same time the restrictive definition of claims was enacted.
I would hold that the probate court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the estate’s action to recover proceeds from the life insurance policy and the credit union account theretofore obtained by defendant-appellee Zella McNerney.
No argument is made that the probate court did not have jurisdiction to award plaintiff a fiduciary fee for her services as personal representative. Defendant argues that the fiduciary fee of $7,200 was excessive. In light of the Court’s finding above, as well as the reasons set forth in the majority opinion the amount of the fiduciary fee to be awarded must be redetermined.
I agree with the majority’s opinion concerning the defendant’s status as a pretermitted spouse.
I further agree with the part of the majority opinion which would preclude the defendant from sharing in the proceeds of the life insurance policy as a pretermitted spouse if a trial court determines that the life insurance policy change would not have occurred but for defendant’s undue influence. Likewise, I agree with the majority opinion which allows a pretermitted spouse to share in the proceeds of the credit union account, since the same would have been an asset of the estate, because such a result would not permit defendantappellee to profit through her wrongdoing if she is found to have obtained such assets through undue influence.
Finally, I agree that the fee of the attorney for the estate must be reestablished by an evidentiary hearing. I am of the opinion, however, that the *619probate court should take into consideration its lack of jurisdiction over the title to the assets above-described, as well as the other factors the majority set forth in their analysis, in making that determination.