In Re Mercure Estate

Michigan Supreme Court

In Re Mercure Estate

216 N.W.2d 914, 391 Mich. 443, 1974 Mich. LEXIS 146

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1974

Docket8 January Term 1974, Docket No. 54,597

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 216 N.W.2d 914 (In Re Mercure Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Mercure Estate, 216 N.W.2d 914, 391 Mich. 443, 1974 Mich. LEXIS 146 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

M. S. Coleman, J.

I concur in the result, but am of the opinion that the cases cited are not applicable to the present set of facts. The cases discussed involved wills written prior to the filing of divorce proceedings and to the execution of property settlement agreements.

In this case, the will was executed after the [446]*446parties had signed a property settlement agreement. Decedent made no reference in this will to plaintiff as his wife but devised his estate to Vera Evelyn Mercure (plaintiff’s name at that time). The facts raise no presumption that the will should be revoked by operation of the divorce. The intent of the testator is clear.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Swainson, Williams, Levin, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with M. S. Coleman, J.

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

M. S. Coleman, J.

I concur in the result, but am of the opinion that the cases cited are not applicable to the present set of facts. The cases discussed involved wills written prior to the filing of divorce proceedings and to the execution of property settlement agreements.

In this case, the will was executed after the [446]*446parties had signed a property settlement agreement. Decedent made no reference in this will to plaintiff as his wife but devised his estate to Vera Evelyn Mercure (plaintiff’s name at that time). The facts raise no presumption that the will should be revoked by operation of the divorce. The intent of the testator is clear.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Swainson, Williams, Levin, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with M. S. Coleman, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W.2d 914, 391 Mich. 443, 1974 Mich. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mercure-estate-mich-1974.

Opinions

M. S. Coleman, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack