(concurring in part; dissenting in
part). I agree with the majority that the personal representative of the decedent’s estate could not bring the dramshop action because the estate is not a proper party. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co v Bourrie, 375 Mich 383; 134 NW2d 713 (1965). Therefore I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the dramshop actions were not barred by the settlement of the wrongful death claims brought on behalf of the minor children and the estate.
I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs, the divorced wife of decedent and the parents, are injured parties within the terms of the dramshop act. In the present case, the decedent’s parents alleged that, as a result of the unlawful furnishing of alcohol to defendant Tippman which was a proximate cause of their son’s death, they were injured in their property, means of support or otherwise. Specifically, they alleged as injuries: loss of society, companionship and comfort; loss of investment in decedent’s upbringing; loss of services; a sense of deprivation, grief, shock and mental suffering; and a loss of income since the decedent was indebted to them on account of monies they had loaned him.
Damages properly recoverable under the dram-shop act inlcude damages for: loss of society, companionship, love and affection, Matson v Soronen, 57 Mich App 190; 226 NW2d 52 (1974), lv den 394 Mich 762 (1975); loss of services, Berger v Weber, *674411 Mich 1; 303 NW2d 424 (1981); and mental anguish, Johnson v Grondin, 170 Mich 447; 136 NW 423 (1912). Under the foregoing cases, however, the right to recover such damages under the dramshop act has been limited to spouses, parents of minor children, and minor children. Because the decedent in the present case was an adult, as a matter of law, plaintiff parents may not recover the above-described damages for the death of their son.
The parents also alleged as damages a loss of income because the decedent was indebted to them on account of monies loaned. However, a claim for monies loaned is an unsecured debt properly assertable against the estate in probate court. MCL 700.701; MSA 27.5701. I do not believe this is a proper damage claim under the dramshop act.
Because the parents have not alleged any damages which are properly awardable, the parents have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. GCR 1963, 117.2(1). This Court will not reverse a lower court’s decision where thé lower court reached the right results, albeit for the wrong reason. Albro v Total Petroleum, Inc, 108 Mich App 1, 4; 310 NW2d 252 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 870 (1982).
I similarly conclude that the other plaintiff, the decedent’s former wife, cannot recover under the dramshop act. She alleged that she lost support, inheritance, consortium and the repayment of an unsecured debt as a result of decedent’s death. There is no indication that plaintiff has a legal right to support or inheritance; she had been divorced from the decedent. Furthermore, I know of no right to consortium after divorce. Plaintiff has no right to compensation for these things. These rights ended with her divorce from the decedent.
*675I believe it is error to attempt to compensate the plaintiffs for their losses in this case. It is clear that a tragedy occurred here, but it we choose to allow the parties to recover, how can we deny recovery to similarly aggrieved friends and distant relations if they were to choose to bring an action? I believe the plaintiffs’ claims in this case were properly denied by the trial court. Summary judgment was proper. I would affirm.