In re Koehler Estate
Decision Date | 24 March 2016 |
Docket Number | 322997.,Docket Nos. 322996 |
Citation | 888 N.W.2d 432,314 Mich.App. 667 |
Parties | In re KOEHLER ESTATE. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Butzel Long (by Mark T. Nelson, Ann Arbor and Amy Glenn, Bloomfield Hills), for Sherry Bierkle.
Kemp Klein Law Firm, Troy (by Richard Bisio and Joseph P. Buttiglieri ), for Ernest Umble.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and O'CONNELL and GLEICHER, JJ.
The law of intestate succession flows from parent-child relationships. What happens when an unmarried father dies before his child is born and no evidence exists that he would have willingly supported his child or openly acknowledged the child as his own? Does nature or nurture establish the familial link for inheritance purposes? We confront these questions here.
Our story begins in Colorado in 1931, with a fatal affray over a woman's affections. Soon after, the woman delivered a child. That child (who grew into a man and had a child of his own) is the linchpin to establishing the paternal line in this inheritance dispute.
The probate court determined that the murdered Coloradan, Carl Cedrick Umble, was the grandfather of the intestate deceased in this case, Kenneth Koehler. Kenneth Koehler's maternal relatives contend that Carl Cedrick Umble's sudden and inopportune exit from this earth triggered MCL 700.2114(4), which severs the intestate inheritance rights of parents who have refused to financially support and openly acknowledge a child. In other words, MCL 700.2114(4) punishes parents who desert and ignore their progeny by denying those parents the right to inherit from their dead child's estate. According to the maternal relatives, Carl Cedrick Umble was such a parent.
The probate court rejected this argument, finding that applying MCL 700.2114(4) in this situation would render "meaningless" other sections of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., that afford inheritance rights to posthumously born children. Further, the court declared, the maternal relatives had not met their summary disposition burden, as they presented no evidence that Carl Cedrick Umble had rejected his in utero child. We agree with the probate court and affirm.
The deceased, Kenneth Koehler, left no will. He had no spouse, no children, and no siblings. His parents predeceased him, as did his grandparents. Under EPIC, half of Kenneth's intestate estate passes to the descendants of his paternal grandparents, and half to his maternal relatives. MCL 700.2103(d).
Kenneth Koehler's paternal pedigree is the focal point of this case. We begin with the details gleaned largely from various public and historical records.
Kenneth's father was a man named Carl Koehler. Carl Koehler was raised by a single mother, Florence Koehler. Florence never married Carl Koehler's father, Carl Cedrick Umble. The tragic and somewhat lurid story (even by today's standards) of Florence Koehler and Carl Cedrick Umble has been pieced together through old Colorado newspaper articles and legal documents.
It appears that Carl Cedrick Umble led a short but passionate life punctuated by the conception of two illegitimate children (Carl Koehler and Ernest Umble), a vicious street fight over a woman (Florence Koehler), and death by stabbing at age 20, three months before Carl Koehler's 1931 birth. The first of Carl Cedrick Umble's love children was Ernest Umble, who was conceived during Carl Cedrick Umble's youthful liaison with Lyndall Adeline Hackett (Lydia). Carl Cedrick and Lydia married a year after Ernest's 1929 birth, rendering Ernest a marital child under current Colorado law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. 19–4–105(1)(c).
Carl Cedrick Umble and Lydia Hackett Umble later separated, and Carl Cedrick began courting Florence Koehler. According to a newspaper account, Florence and Carl Cedrick quarreled. Although he "failed to revive the girl's affection for him," Carl Cedrick reportedly "threatened violence" to anyone who dated Florence. One Clyde Shadwick ignored this warning. When Carl Cedrick attempted to kiss Florence, Shadwick approached the pair and was "knocked down by a blow of Umble's fist[.]" Shadwick then stabbed Carl Cedrick Umble, allegedly in self-defense.
Carl Cedrick Umble's second son, Carl Koehler, was born three months later. In probate parlance, Carl Koehler was a "posthumous child." A posthumous child is "[a] child born after a parent's death." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.), p. 291.1
Florence never had any other children. When she died in 1946, Carl was only 15 years old. Four years later, Carl married Anna York. The marriage produced Kenneth Koehler and no other children. Carl died when Kenneth was eight years old. Kenneth died at the age of 59, and left no will distributing his $500,000 estate. For those readers who find themselves lost in Kenneth's patrilineal tree, we include this visual aid:
Sherry Bierkle is Kenneth's first cousin on his mother's side. She successfully petitioned the probate court to be named the personal representative of Kenneth's estate. Approximately 17 months later, Bierkle filed a final accounting and a proposed settlement distributing the estate among Kenneth's maternal relatives. Ernest Umble intervened. Ernest contended that as Kenneth's uncle and sole surviving paternal relative, half of Kenneth's estate belongs to him. The maternal relatives challenged Ernest's claim of kinship, focusing on the paternity of Carl Koehler, Kenneth's father.
Ernest asserted that Kenneth's grandfather was his own father, Carl Cedrick Umble.
Bierkle took issue with Ernest Umble's claim and filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). She insisted that Ernest was barred from inheriting by MCL 700.2114(4), which precludes a natural parent from inheritance from or through a child when the natural parent fails to "openly treat[ ] the child as his or hers," and "has ... refused to support the child."
The probate court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Assembling the biological strands of Kenneth Koehler's paternal line presented a challenge worthy of an expert archivist. Ernest presented Carl Koehler's Colorado birth certificate and a Denver, Colorado, newspaper article describing the circumstances of Carl Cedrick Umble's demise. The parties also submitted various marriage, birth, and death certificates for the involved individuals, including Ernest's certificate of live birth indicating that his father was Carl Umble.
The probate court determined that Carl Koehler's father was Carl Cedrick Umble. This finding means that Ernest Umble and Carl Koehler were half-brothers, and that Ernest Umble was the uncle of our deceased, Kenneth Koehler. As Ernest Umble was the only surviving relative on Kenneth's paternal side, the court ruled that he would take half of the estate. The probate court rejected Bierkle's assertion that MCL 700.2114(4) barred Ernest's claim. The court also rebuffed Bierkle's legal argument that Carl Koehler's paternity was not properly established under Michigan law.
Bierkle appeals.
Bierkle asserts that the probate court clearly erred when it found that Carl Cedrick Umble was the natural father of Carl Koehler. We review the probate court's factual findings for clear error. In re Townsend Conservatorship, 293 Mich.App. 182, 186, 809 N.W.2d 424 (2011). "A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). We consider issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Id.
Whether Carl Cedrick Umble was Carl Koehler's father for purposes of EPIC is important, because establishing a parent-child relationship is the first step toward determining whether Ernest Umble can inherit as a paternal descendant. If Carl Cedrick Umble was entitled to inherit from his child, Carl Koehler, Ernest Umble inherits as the only surviving descendant of Koehler's paternal grandparents. Otherwise, Bierkle and the other maternal descendants inherit Kenneth's entire estate.
Article II, part 1 of EPIC governs rights to intestate inheritance. In re Certified Question, 493 Mich. 70, 76–77, 825 N.W.2d 566 (2012). EPIC helpfully supplies the basic definitions needed to understand its pertinent provisions. The term "descendant" is used "in relation to an individual," and includes "all of his or her descendants of all generations, with the relationship of parent and child at each generation being determined by the definitions of child and parent contained in this act." MCL 700.1103(k). EPIC defines a "parent" as "an individual entitled to take, or who would be entitled to take, as a parent under this act by intestate succession from a child who dies without a will and whose relationship is in question." MCL 700.1106(i).
If a decedent dies intestate and has no surviving spouse, EPIC provides the order in which the decedent's estate passes to his or her surviving relatives.
First, the estate passes to the decedent's descendants. MCL 700.2103(a). If the decedent has no descendants, the estate passes to the decedent's surviving parent or parents. MCL 700.2103(b). If the decedent has neither descendants nor surviving parents, the estate passes to the descendants of the decedent's parents (the decedent's siblings, nieces, and nephews). MCL 700.2103(c).
If the decedent has no surviving descendants, parents, or descendants of parents, EPIC instructs the probate court to determine whether there are any descendants of the decedent's grandparents. MCL 700.2103(d). Half the decedent's estate passes to the decedent's paternal grandparents or their descendants, and the other half passes to the decedent's maternal grandparents or their descendants. Id. Finally, "[i]f there is no surviving grandparent or descendant of a grandparent on either the paternal or the maternal side, the entire estate passes to the decedent's relatives on the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guardianship & Alternatives, Inc. v. Jones (In re Horton)
...325 Mich.App. 325925 N.W.2d 207IN RE ESTATE OF Duane Francis HORTON II.Guardianship and Alternatives, Inc., Appellee,v.Lanora Jones, Appellant.No. 339737Court of Appeals of Michigan.Submitted ... In re Bem Estate , 247 Mich. App. 427, 433, 637 N.W.2d 506 (2001). "We review the probate courts factual findings for clear error." In re Koehler Estate , 314 Mich. App. 667, 673-674, 888 N.W.2d 432 (2016). "A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm ... ...
-
Crego v. Edward W. Sparrow Hosp. Ass'n
... ... In re Erwin Estate , 503 Mich. 1, 11; 921 N.W.2d 308 (2018). MCL 600.2912d(1) requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to "file with the complaint an affidavit of ... It is true that the use of the term "and" generally indicates that two statutory clauses linked by the term must both be satisfied. In re Koehler Estate , 314 Mich. App. 667, 681-682, 888 N.W.2d 432 (2016). But this Court has also warned that the general rule should not be applied when it ... ...
-
Spitza v. Spitza (In re Spitza Testamentary Tr.)
...her duties as a cotrustee.[1] We disagree. 6 We review a probate court's factual findings for clear error. In re Koehler Estate, 314 Mich.App. 667, 673-674; 888 N.W.2d 432 (2016). "A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mista......