In re Munro's Estate

• Decision Date: 06 January 1941
• Docket Number: No. 110.,110.
• Parties: In re MUNRO'S ESTATE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

296 Mich. 80

295 N.W. 567

In re MUNRO'S ESTATE.

No. 110.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 6, 1941.

Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Donald Munro, deceased, wherein Maude M. Doody filed a claim for personal services against the estate. From a judgment for the claimant on a trial by jury on appeal to circuit court after disallowance of claim by referee, the executor of the estate appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John Simpson, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

H. D. Boardman, of Jackson, for appellant Jackson City Bank & Trust co.

James J. Noon, John E. Shekell, and J. Oliver Sullivan, all of Jackson, for appellee Maude M. Doody.

NORTH, Justice.

Donald Munro, a resident of the city of Jackson, died February 22, 1939. His wife had died in 1931, having been more or less of an invalid for approximately the last two years of her life. They left no surviving children. In 1937 Mr. Munro made a will by which he left his estate, which was substantial, share and share alike to a brother and numerous nieces and nephews. For years Mr. Munro, and his wife during her lifetime, had lived in the first story of one of a number of houses which he owned, but he had rented the upper story. For upwards of 25 years prior to Mr. Munro's death plaintiff and her husband had occupied as their residence the upper portion of decedent's home property. They used a common entrance, had a common water supply, and both stories of the dwelling were heated by one furnace. Plaintiff was in nowise related to Mr. Munro. After his death she filed a claim for personal services against his estate. The referee to whom the probate court referred the hearing disallowed the claim. On appeal to the circuit court, where it was tried by jury, plaintiff had verdict and judgment for $6,500. The executor of the estate has appealed.

The character of the controversy is set forth with such clarity in the circuit judge's charge to the jury that we quote it in part:

‘Now, briefly, it is the claim of the plaintiff, Mrs. Doody, that she asks compensation for servides rendered to Mr. and Mrs. Munro over a period of twenty years. She claims the services were worth as a reasonable sum ten dollars a week. She claims that she did work for the Munros and that Mr. Munro agreed to pay for those services. She claims that she and her husband lived in the upstairs of the Munro property, and that they lived there for a great number of years. I think the testimony will show some place from 1912 or thereabouts. She claims that she rendered services for both Mr. and Mrs. Munro. She claims that she cleaned the house, acted as nurse, did errands and generally helped the Munros. She claims that she did it with expectation of pay and that it was received by Mr. Munro under an understanding and intention that it be paid for.

‘The claim as filed by her states: For services from January 1, 1919 to February 22, 1939, the sum of 1,047 weeks at $10 a week. In caring for and nursing decedent and his wife, washing and ironing, attending furnace, dusting, sweeping, keep the household in order, sewing, preparing and serving meals in decedent's home for him and his wife, helping and assisting housekeepers and nurses employed by decedent, attending to their business matters, collecting rents and other debts, paying the telephone bill and gas and water bills and other bills, writing receipts, ordering supplies, purchasing merchandise to be used by the decedent and his wife, and generally looking after decedent and his wife's home, welfare, comfort, happiness and health and in general attending to their business affairs, all of which plaintiff claims was done at the request of the decedent and his wife with the promise of remuneration therefor.

‘That is briefly the claim of the plaintiff in this case.

‘On the other hand, it is the defendant's claim that there was never any contract, either express or implied, between the claimant and the decedent wherein and whereby decedent agreed or promised to pay the claimant anything for such service or any other services as she alleges in her claim filed against the estate.

‘It is further the claim of the defendant that the Doodys were tenants of Mr. Munro, that they resided on the second floor of the Munro home from approximately the year 1912 to the time of his death in February, 1939, and that during all of this time they were tenants. The defendant claims Mr. Munro furnished the fuel to heat the entire home, that the Doodys paid or were supposed to pay rental in different amounts over the period of their occupancy there, that within the last few years the rental had been reduced; that for the period at least from September, 1933, when Mrs. Ladow came there as housekeeper the Doodys were supposed to pay fifteen dollars per month rent, and that in addition Mrs. Doody had undertaken to take care of the furnace as part of the rent. The defendant further claims that over the period of time from 1933 until February, 1939, when Mr. Munro died, the Doodys in fact paid rent in the total amount of one hundred and five dollars; that if there were any errands or small duties which Mrs. Doody had done for Mr. Munro during his lifetime, that he would have taken this into consideration in compelling them to pay rent over the entire period of time known at least to the defendant's estate.

‘It is further the claim of the defendant estate that with the exception of some short intervals of time since the death of Mrs. Munro, Mr. Munro has in fact employed at least three different housekeepers to take care of the house and of him, and that these housekeepers performed services at his request and for which they were paid, for which Mrs. Doody, the claimant, is now making claim.

‘It is further the claim of the defendant estate that if in fact Mr. Munro during his lifetime had ever made any statement or statements to third parties with reference to what he intended to do for Mrs. Doody that this was not communicated to Mrs. Doody in his lifetime. They claim that there was no understanding or agreement between Mr. Munro and Mrs. Doody with reference to this, that any expressions of this nature, if in fact they were made, were testamentary in character, that is to say, expressions of an intention to make provision in his will for her. They claim that he had a right in law to change his mind in this respect and that in fact he did change his mind, if he did ever...