Swanson's Estate, Matter of, Docket No. 48056

• Citation: 98 Mich.App. 347,296 N.W.2d 256
• Decision Date: 17 June 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48056
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Bert George SWANSON, Deceased. Sherwood LONG, Appellant, v. Carl SWANSON, Administrator, Appellee. 98 Mich.App. 347, 296 N.W.2d 256
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 256

296 N.W.2d 256

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Bert George SWANSON,

Deceased.

Sherwood LONG, Appellant, v. Carl SWANSON, Administrator, Appellee.

Docket No. 48056.

98 Mich.App. 347, 296 N.W.2d 256

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

June 17, 1980.

Released for Publication Sept. 24, 1980.

[98 MICHAPP 348] John L. Belanger, Warren, for appellant.

Timothy R. Sinclair, Roseville, for appellee.

Before R. B. BURNS, P. J., and BASHARA and CAVANAGH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Sherwood Long, the appellant, timely filed a claim against the estate of Bert George Swanson, deceased. After review of the report and recommendation filed by a referee after a full hearing, the Macomb County Probate Court disallowed the appellant's claim by order of August 1, 1979. The appellant then timely filed an appeal of right in the Macomb County Circuit Court. That appeal was subsequently dismissed by the circuit court for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant[98 MICHAPP 349] then filed an application for leave to appeal from the order of the circuit court dismissing the appeal from probate court. That application is presently before this Court.

The circuit court dismissal of the original appeal was apparently grounded on M.C.L. § 600.861; M.S.A. § 27A.861, which provides, inter alia, that a party to a proceeding in the probate court may appeal as a matter of right to the Court of Appeals from a "final order affecting the rights or interests of any interested person in an estate or trust" and M.C.L. § 600.863; M.S.A. § 27A.863, which provides in part as follows:

"(1) Except when prohibited by statute, a person aggrieved by an order, sentence, or judgment of the probate court, other than an order appealable under section 861, may appeal from that order, sentence, or judgment to the circuit court in the county in which the order, sentence, or judgment is rendered." ¹

These provisions are part of the new chapter 8 added to the Revised Judicature Act by 1978 P.A. 543, which took effect July 1, 1979, one month before entry of the probate court order in question. Since the order in question clearly was entered in a decedent's estate, the issue is whether or not the order denying the claim was a "final" order and therefore appealable to this Court rather than the circuit court.

Appellant contends that since the order in question does not dispose of all the claims of all the parties in the probate proceeding and does not contain language denominating it as a final order upon a finding that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final order, the probate court order in question is not a final order under GCR [98 MICHAPP 350] 1963, 518.2. Does GCR 1963, 518.2 have any applicability to probate proceedings? GCR 1963, 11.1 provides that the general court rules govern the practice in the circuit courts, the recorder's court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court but makes no mention of the probate courts. ² On the other hand, PCR 11.2 provides that the probate court rules govern the practice in the probate courts in all proceedings other than proceedings in the juvenile division. ³ We conclude that the general court rules do not apply to the probate court except in those instances where the probate court rules adopt provisions of the general court rules by specific reference. Therefore, GCR 1963, 518.2 does not apply to probate proceedings in this decedent's estate. Further, the probate rules do not contain any provisions equivalent to GCR 1963, 518.2.

Since there is no statutory or rule definition of the term "final" as used in M.C.L. § 600.861; M.S.A. § 27A.861, the determination of which probate court orders are "final" and which are not for purposes of determining the appellate jurisdiction of this Court will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, there is no useful Michigan case law precedent. Until the enactment of the Revised Probate Code (M.C.L. § 700.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 27.5001 et seq.) by 1978 P.A. 642 and the addition of chapter 8 to the Revised Judicature Act (M.C.L. § 600.101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 27A.101 et seq.) by 1978 P.A. 543 the question of finality of probate court orders was [98 MICHAPP 351] irrelevant because probate court orders, with few exceptions, were appealable to the circuit court as a matter of right regardless of finality. ⁴ The previous statutory provision governing appeals from probate court, M.C.L. § 701.45a; M.S.A. § 27.3178(45.1), contained no finality requirement.

The reason why case law on the question of finality of circuit court orders is of little assistance in determining the finality of probate court orders was well stated in In re Estate of Cook, 245 So.2d 694, 695 (Fla.App.1971):

"It is apparent upon reflection that probate proceedings differ from ordinary litigation in that the rights of outside parties are from time to time determined and orders entered in the course of administration result in payment, or the necessity for filing suit, whereas the ordinary action involves the same parties throughout and a single appeal from final judgment is appropriate."

The question of finality, therefore, is one which can be determined only by analysis of the issues decided by a particular probate court order and its precise effect on the rights of the parties involved.

A probate court order entered pursuant to M.C.L. § 700.702; M.S.A. § 27.5702 disallowing a claim filed in a decedent's estate is dispositive of the rights of the claimant leaving the only remaining remedy appellate review. Further, M.C.L. § 700.705; M.S.A. § 27.5705 allows the assessment of costs against an [98 MICHAPP 352] unsuccessful claimant, including attorney fees of up to $100. An order denying a claim is a determination that the party who filed the claim is not a lawful creditor of the estate and therefore has no...