In Re Estate of Cummin

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
129622 & (38) Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
_________________________________________ Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
IN RE ESTATE OF JUNE LOUISA CUMMIN,

Deceased.

_________________________________________

EDWARD MURPHY, Personal Representative of

the Estate of JUNE LOUISA CUMMIN,

Deceased,

Petitioner-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 129622

COA: 253594

Clare PC: 00-013321-SE

BETH HEGYI,

Respondent-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2005
judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-
appellant are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, we REVERSE that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the
probate court’s imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds of respondent’s sale of
the property at issue. Judge Wilder correctly concluded in In re Estate of Cummin, 258
Mich App 402 (2003), that an agent may engage in self dealing if the principal consents
and has knowledge of the details of the transaction and the passage of time and the
change in decedent’s mental status could not affect respondent’s authority to transfer the
property if decedent had consented to the transaction with knowledge of its details. Id.,
pp 409-410. Judge Wilder also correctly concluded that the Estates and Protected
Individuals Code (EPIC) prohibition against self-dealing, MCL 700.1214, does not apply
because respondent had an accrued right in the property before EPIC took effect on April
1, 2000, MCL 700.8101(2)(d). Id., p 408. Application of these conclusions to the
probate court’s factual findings that respondent and her husband credibly testified that
decedent requested respondent to transfer the property to herself, together with the lack of
 2

any evidence that decedent ever changed her mind in that regard, preclude the imposition
of a constructive trust in favor of decedent’s estate. We REMAND this case to the Clare
Probate Court for further proceedings consistent with this order. The application for
leave to appeal as cross-appellant is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.
April 26, 2006 _________________________________________
s0419 Clerk