Preview:

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S


IN RE HORACE GREEN, DECEASED. ________________________________________ TYRONE GREEN,

UNPUBLISHED

August 16, 1996 Petitioner/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v DOUGLAS D. ELLIARD and GREEN GREEN, Respondents/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and JUANITA DEAN, Respondent. . No. 173335 LC No. 91-859483 SE

Before: Wahls, P.J., and Young and H.A. Beach,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner brought this action for tortious interference with an inheritance against his uncle Willie Green (Green), his cousin Juanita Dean, 1 and their attorney, Douglas Elliard. The jury awarded petitioner $80,000 in damages. Respondents Green and Elliard moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial judge granted this motion in part, reducing Elliard's liability, but denied the motion as to Green. On appeal, respondents Green and Elliard argue that the trial judge should have granted the JNOV motion in full. On cross-appeal, petitioner challenges the partial grant of JNOV and disputes the manner in which damages and costs have been apportioned among respondents. We reverse in part and affirm in part. In 1969, decedent, who was petitioner's uncle, executed a will in which he left petitioner: 1) any automobiles which he might own at the time of his death; 2) all of his real estate; 3) a Class C and SDM * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

bar business in Detroit; and, 4) all cash on hand and in bank accounts belonging to this business. Following his uncle's death in December, 1990, petitioner brought this action against respondents, alleging that they had conspired to obtain decedent's wealth for themselves, thereby depriving petitioner of the devises left him in the will. Petitioner testified at trial that respondents took advantage of decedent's debilitated state to influence him to sell the bar property and deplete the savings accounts. Petitioner accused respondents of using decedent's money for their own gain, rather than for decedent's care. Petitioner presented the testimony of a handwriting analyst who testified that decedent's signature on a deed representing the sale of the bar property had been forged. The jury awarded petitioner $80,000 in damages. The trial judge later determined that Elliard was liable only to the extent of $4,000, the value of the bar property. However, the judge held that the verdict against Green was supported by competent evidence, because Green admitted withdrawing funds from joint accounts and forwarding this money to Dean. The trial judge then determined that Elliard was liable only for five percent of the interest, fees, and costs associated with the judgment, whereas Dean and Green would be jointly and severally liable for ninety-five percent of the interest, fees and costs related to the judgment. On appeal, Green and Elliard argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for JNOV in full. In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a defendant's motion for JNOV, this Court examines the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thorin v Bloomfield Hills Bd of Educ, 203 Mich App 692, 696; 513 NW2d 230 (1994). Neither this Court nor the trial court may substitute its own judgment for that of the jury where reasonable jurors could honestly have reached different conclusions. Id. The Second Restatement of Torts defines tortious interference with an expected inheritance as follows: One who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift. [4 Restatement Torts, 2d,

Download IN RE HORACE GREEN DECEASED.pdf

Michigan Law