in Re Soltys Estate ( 2014 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
November 26, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
148740 Michael F. Cavanagh
Stephen J. Markman
In re Estate of DOLORES C. SOLTYS Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
_________________________________________ Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano,
DENNIS SOLTYS, SR., and MARLENE Justices
HARRIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v SC: 148740
COA: 311143
St. Clair PC: 2009-000587-CZ
DAVID A. SCHMIDLIN, Personal Representative
of the Estate of KATHLEEN SCHMIDLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2014
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion
affirming the ruling of the St. Clair Probate Court that the plaintiffs had sufficiently
rebutted the statutory presumption of a depositor’s intention to vest title to jointly held
accounts in the surviving joint owner, MCL 487.703. In this case, the statutory
presumption that the decedent intended the joint accounts to become the property of the
survivor arose based on evidence that the decedent created and maintained the accounts
until her death. Jacques v Jacques, 352 Mich. 127 (1958). The Court of Appeals stated
that “the statutory presumption . . . can be rebutted by competent evidence.” However,
although a party challenging the statutory presumption certainly must proffer competent
evidence, the relevant question is whether the party has met its burden of proof to
overcome the statutory presumption by providing reasonably clear and persuasive proof
of a contrary intention. Id.; Lau v Lau, 304 Mich. 218 (1943); see also Kirilloff v Glinisty,
375 Mich. 586 (1965). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for application of
the proper standard. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
November 26, 2014
p1125
Clerk