Now Accepting New Clients!

ESTATE PLANNING 2: Plaintiff’s documents did not meet the requirements of a recordable document.

Plaintiff and defendant are siblings and the nephew and niece, respectively, of the decedent. Prior to his death in November 2014, the decedent owned and operated a dairy farm on his 80-acre parcel of land. Several of the decedent’s family members, including both parties, helped the decedent operate his farm at various times over the years.

Plaintiff testified that he was never paid by the decedent for helping him on the farm. However, he claimed that the decedent had agreed to compensate him by giving him the 80-acre farm, as well as his farm machinery, cattle, and other personal property, upon his death.  According to plaintiff, the decedent executed two hand-written documents to this effect on October 20, 2001. Plaintiff testified that he initially spoke with the decedent about the agreement privately, but that defendant was informed of it later and agreed to its terms. Defendant did not recall speaking to plaintiff about the arrangement or seeing the documents that the decedent had written. However, she did not dispute that the decedent had signed the documents.

On January 5, 2010, the decedent executed a quit-claim deed and a deed-of-gift to himself. The quit-claim deed was for the real property. The deed provided that if the decedent had not conveyed the property prior to his death, the property was conveyed to defendant. The deed-of-gift conveyed the decedent’s personal property to himself for his lifetime, including his farm machinery and crops, and upon his death, conveyed it to defendant if he had not previously conveyed the property prior to his death. Additionally, the decedent had executed a last will and testament in 1988 in which he devised his entire estate to defendant, and executed a second will in 2002 in which he also made defendant his sole beneficiary.

Plaintiff filed a petition against defendant seeking to set aside the quit-claim deed and deed-of-gift and claiming an interest in the property through the October 2001 documents. Plaintiff also claimed that if the court did not set aside the deeds, the decedent’s estate would be unjustly enriched by his time and efforts spent farming the decedent’s property without compensation

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment action against the estate pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). In an affidavit, she attested to personal knowledge that plaintiff had not worked on the decedent’s farm during the six years before he filed the litigation. She asserted that the unjust enrichment claim against the estate was thus barred by the applicable statute of limitations, MCL 600.5807(8). The court agreed.

The court determined that plaintiff’s documents were ambiguous and concluded that they did not meet the requirements of a recordable document. Plaintiff’s deed for real property did not contain terms of consideration or a legal description, and the conveyance of the decedent’s personal property to plaintiff was defective because plaintiff believed that the document conveyed the personal property to him with immediate effect, but he had left all of the items in the decedent’s possession for 13 years.

The court noted that the decedent had thrice declared his written intent to leave all of his property to defendant: in his 1988 will; in his 2002 will; and in his quit-claim deed and deed of-gift in 2010. Thus, the court found that the decedent intended to leave his property to defendant and that the 2010 quit-claim deed and deed-of-gift were valid conveyances, whereas plaintiff’s 2001 documents were not.

Aldrich Legal Services is pleased to assist you with your estate planning needs.

We draft and review wills, trusts and real estate deeds.  It is important that your estate planning documents meet the legal requirements. Located in Plymouth, Michigan, we assist clients throughout southeast Michigan.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000