Hurley v. Hurley
| Decision Date | 16 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 51103,51103 |
| Citation | 309 N.W.2d 225,107 Mich.App. 249 |
| Parties | Phyllis L. HURLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James O. HURLEY, Defendant, and Michigan National Bank, Trustee, Garnishee-Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Timothy J. Donovan, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
Russel A. Lawler, Lansing, for defendant.
Michael G. Woodworth, Lansing, for garnishee-defendant-appellant.
Before MAHER, P. J., and ALLEN and CYNAR, JJ.
On March 31, 1980, Ingham County Circuit Court ordered garnishee-defendant, Michigan National Bank, to pay accrued and future income of a spendthrift trust to the court in satisfaction of an outstanding judgment for past due child support taken against defendant, James Hurley, former husband of plaintiff, Phyllis Hurley. Garnishee-defendant's motion for rehearing was denied on April 14, 1980. Garnishee-defendant appeals as of right.
The facts before this Court are undisputed. On September 26, 1966, Maybelle Hurley, defendant's mother and a resident of Missouri, executed a will in Missouri. The will devised the decedent's personalty and household goods and furnishings to defendant, her son James. The remainder of decedent's property was placed into four trusts. One-half of the property was placed in a spendthrift trust for James. He was to receive all income from the trust during his lifetime with the principal passing upon James' death into the trusts (described below) for James' two daughters, Linda Kay and Cherri Ann, the decedent's granddaughters. One-quarter of the property was placed into a spendthrift trust for the decedent's brother, Clifford E. Hemmer. He was to receive all income from the trust during his lifetime with $5,000 passing to decedent's niece, Florence Yoshimoto, if she should survive Clifford, and the remainder passing into James's trust, if he survived Clifford; otherwise the remainder would pass in the same manner as James's trust, i. e., to the decedent's granddaughters. The remaining one-quarter would be split equally between the decedent's two granddaughters. Until age 21, the granddaughters would receive only enough money for necessary maintenance, support, and education. From age 21 to age 28, the granddaughters would receive all income from the trusts. Upon reaching age 24, each granddaughter would receive one-half of the principal of the trust. Upon reaching age 28, each granddaughter would receive the remaining principal, and the trusts would terminate. The end result of the four interlocking trusts set up by the decedent is that each granddaughter or her issue would share the entire principal of all four trusts should they survive James. If neither granddaughter or her issue should so survive James, the entire principal of all four trusts would pass according to the statutes of descent and distributions of the State of Missouri as if the decedent had died intestate at the time of the termination of James's trust.
Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in Missouri approximately six years before the decedent executed her will in September 1966. The decedent did not provide for plaintiff in her will. In 1970, decedent moved from Missouri to Michigan where she remained until her death in 1978. Defendant, James Hurley, moved from Missouri and presently resides in California. He failed to maintain his child support payments. In 1977, plaintiff filed suit in Missouri for past due child support, and in 1979 obtained a Missouri judgment of $19,630 principal plus $5,728 interest. In 1978, Maybelle Hurley died in Michigan, and her will was admitted into probate in Ingham County, Michigan. Garnishee-defendant, Michigan National Bank, was appointed trustee under the will.
In 1979, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Ingham County Circuit Court against defendant and garnishee-defendant, seeking full faith and credit of the Missouri child support judgment. Plaintiff then moved to require the garnishee-defendant, as trustee to pay plaintiff the past due and future income from defendant's trust to satisfy the outstanding Missouri child support judgment. Garnishee-defendant answered, claiming that the income from the spendthrift trust was not subject to process by the court. On March 31, 1980, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion and ordered garnishee-defendant to pay due and future income into the court to satisfy plaintiff's outstanding judgment. Only garnishee-defendant appeals as of right.
The sole issue before the Court is whether plaintiff, as defendant's former wife, can reach by judicial process the income from a spendthrift trust created in favor of defendant, her former husband, to obtain satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment against defendant for past due child support. The trust established under the terms of Maybelle Hurley's will meets the definition of a spendthrift trust set forth in Rose v. Southern Michigan National Bank, 255 Mich. 275, 281, 238 N.W. 284 (1931), and quoted with approval in Preminger v. Union Bank & Trust Co., N. A., 54 Mich.App. 361, 365, 220 N.W.2d 795 (1974):
" "
Although the issue is one of first impression in Michigan, 1 it has been ruled upon in several other jurisdictions. The majority rule is that, in the absence of a specific state statute, the income of a spendthrift trust of which a former husband is the current income beneficiary may be reached to satisfy his former wife's claim for alimony, separate maintenance, or child support. See Anno: Trust income or assets as subject to claim against beneficiary for alimony, maintenance, or child support, 91 A.L.R.2d 262, 271-272. Restatement, Trusts 2d, § 157, p. 328 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Edgar, Matter of
...Ford in at least three cases, in addition to this one." (Appellee's Brief, p. 6). The three cases are Preminger, Hurley v. Hurley, 107 Mich.App. 249, 309 N.W.2d 225 (1981), and Coverston v. Kellogg, 136 Mich.App. 504, 357 N.W.2d 705 (1984). 6 It was further argued that the fact that the Mis......
-
Estate of Edgar, Matter of
...154 (1951); Preminger, supra; Coverston v. [137 MICHAPP 425] Kellogg, 136 Mich.App. 504, 357 N.W.2d 705 (1984); Hurley v. Hurley, 107 Mich.App. 249, 309 N.W.2d 225 (1981), lv. den. 413 Mich. 890 Under the plain meaning of the Kessner "income only" language adopted in Rose, supra, the spendt......
-
Council v. Owens
...to satisfy claims for unpaid child support and alimony, in the absence of a state statute to the contrary. See Hurley v. Hurley, 107 Mich.App. 249, 309 N.W.2d 225 (1981). In reaching this decision some courts find an intent on the part of the settlor not to shield thebeneficiary's interest ......
-
Dcss v. Brown
...of a trust, may dispose of it as he pleases and may impose spendthrift restraints on the disposition of income." (Hurley v. Hurley (1981) 107 Mich.App. 249, 254, 309 N.W.2d 225 [spendthrift trust created by mother did not shield son, the beneficiary, from child support By enacting section 1......
-
The New Direction of American Trust Law
...(Third) of Trusts contains a similar—though not identical—provision. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 59 (2003). 37. Hurley v. Hurley, 309 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981) (“The majority rule is that, in the absence of a specific state statute, the income of a spendthrift trust of which......