Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

MARLENE ARCHER, PATRICIA ANDERSON, LEONARD BOYD, PRESSLEY MURRY, LONNIE MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER HICKS, FRANCINE HOWARD, and CLARENCE BOYD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v CHARLES ANDERSON and JAMES ANDERSON, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2009

No. 285251 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-610251-CZ

Before: Saad, C.J., and Sawyer and Borrello, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's order that granted summary disposition to defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Robert New died on February 10, 2006. New had no wife or children and plaintiffs are eight of approximately 20 nieces and nephews that survived New at the time of his death. Plaintiffs filed this action in circuit court against defendants, who are two of New's other living nephews. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants are liable for conversion because, before New died, they conspired to add themselves to New's financial accounts as joint owners or beneficiaries and as beneficiaries on his life insurance policy. Plaintiffs maintain that, according to New's will, he intended that his estate would be divided equally among his nieces and nephews and that, therefore, they are entitled to an award of damages from defendants. Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and argued that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court agreed and granted summary disposition to defendants. Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erroneously dismissed this action because it is a simple tort case involving a claim of conversion, and not a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. This Court reviews motions for summary disposition de novo. Weishuhn v Catholic Diocese of Lansing, 279 Mich App 150, 155; 756 NW2d 483 (2008). "Likewise, an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction that turns on an interpretation of statutory provisions is reviewed de novo." Cairns v City of East Lansing, 275 Mich App 102, 107; 738 NW2d 246 (2007). "In considering a motion challenging jurisdiction under MCR 2.116(C)(4), a court must -1-

determine whether the affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence, demonstrate that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." CC Mid West, Inc v McDougall, 470 Mich 878; 683 NW2d 142 (2004), citing MCR 2.116(G)(5). The trial court ruled that plaintiffs' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court and that, as a circuit court, it lacked jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs' claims. Article 6,

Download MARLENE ARCHER V CHARLES ANDERSON.pdf

Michigan Law