Hannah v. Attorney General

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hannah v. Attorney General

168 N.W.2d 643, 16 Mich. App. 689, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1468

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1969

DocketDocket No. 5,197

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 643 (Hannah v. Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hannah v. Attorney General, 168 N.W.2d 643, 16 Mich. App. 689, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1468 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by Royal Rood and Marion Belle Rood, hereinafter designated cross-plaintiffs, from an order dismissing their cross-complaint.

Plaintiffs filed this action to obtain construction and interpretation of the last will and codicil of John R. Rood. Cross-plaintiffs filed an answer and a cross-complaint by which they sought the assets of the estate and an accounting. Their theory for affirmative relief was that plaintiffs intend not to carry out the terms of the will, to disregard the terms of the will, and that the action by plaintiffs to obtain construction and interpretation of the will and codicil amounted to a renunciation of the will and codicil. It was cross-plaintiffs’ claim that intestacy resulted from the foregoing.

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117, and the appeal is from the grant of this motion.

The will was admitted to probate March 19, 1962, and the codicil was admitted April 2, 1962. The time for appeal from admission to probate has long since elapsed. MCLA § 701.44 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 27.3178 [44]). The validity of the will and codicil is not subject to attack.

The trial court held that the will and codicil created a charitable trust. With this holding we agree, and it precludes the relief sought by cross-plaintiffs in their cross-complaint.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by Royal Rood and Marion Belle Rood, hereinafter designated cross-plaintiffs, from an order dismissing their cross-complaint.

Plaintiffs filed this action to obtain construction and interpretation of the last will and codicil of John R. Rood. Cross-plaintiffs filed an answer and a cross-complaint by which they sought the assets of the estate and an accounting. Their theory for affirmative relief was that plaintiffs intend not to carry out the terms of the will, to disregard the terms of the will, and that the action by plaintiffs to obtain construction and interpretation of the will and codicil amounted to a renunciation of the will and codicil. It was cross-plaintiffs’ claim that intestacy resulted from the foregoing.

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117, and the appeal is from the grant of this motion.

The will was admitted to probate March 19, 1962, and the codicil was admitted April 2, 1962. The time for appeal from admission to probate has long since elapsed. MCLA § 701.44 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 27.3178 [44]). The validity of the will and codicil is not subject to attack.

The trial court held that the will and codicil created a charitable trust. With this holding we agree, and it precludes the relief sought by cross-plaintiffs in their cross-complaint.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 643, 16 Mich. App. 689, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannah-v-attorney-general-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack