Court Opinion

ID: 9741631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:59:44.586087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.155956
License: Public Domain

Voelker, J.
(concurring). "We concur in the result reached in the above case, and with most of the reasoning, but wish to go on record as questioning the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of our Brother’s opinion that the probate court failed to gain “jurisdiction” of the proceedings because a necessary name was omitted from the petition for probate of the will. We think that the implication that the probate court never gained jurisdiction is both incorrect and unnecessary to a proper decision in the case. We have recently joined in certain minority opinions of this Court expressing our grave concern over both the wisdom and utility of such a casual and, in our view, dangerously loose questioning of basic jurisdiction in order to reach a result in a given case which is thought to he desirable, and there is no need to repeat what was said there. See dissenting opinions in Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich 97.
We also recommend that an appropriate committee of the Michigan State Bar initiate and undertake an investigation into the professional conduct of the attorney for the proponent in thus omitting under these circumstances the name of Laura B. Gray from the petition for probate of the will, which petition appears to have been drawn by him. In making tins recommendation we are of course expressing no opinion on the merits of any such investigation.
Smith and Black, JJ., concurred with Voelker, J.