Wrongful death settlement & distribution; MCL 600.2922(5) & (6); “Fair & equitable”; Lack of an evidentiary hearing; Personal Representative (PR)

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed the order approving a wrongful-death settlement and distribution of proceeds and granting the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Decedent-Evelyn was survived by her husband, appellant, and appellees – her sisters Black (the PR/plaintiff) and Annette, and her father. The issue related “to the distribution of damages reached through a settlement between plaintiff and defendants.” The court concluded “that the trial court’s award of proceeds to Black and Annette was adequately supported by the record.” It noted that appellant “conceded in the trial court and on appeal that Black and Annette are entitled to settlement proceeds.” The appropriate inquiry was “whether appellant was properly excluded from the distribution of settlement proceeds based on his relationship with Evelyn.” The court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake when it excluded appellant from the award of settlement proceeds.” The trial court found that based “on the couple’s pending divorce and the lack of evidence that Evelyn wished to reconcile with appellant before she died, the . . . proposed distribution was fair and equitable. Contrary to appellant’s arguments, this determination was supported by the evidence.” The court determined that “the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that there was no evidence of ‘concrete overt steps’ taken by Evelyn towards reconciliation.” It found “that the trial court properly ‘assess[ed] the type of relationship [Evelyn] had with [appellant] in terms of objective behavior as indicated by the time and activity shared and the overall characteristics of the relationship,’ when it approved the settlement and distribution of proceeds.” In addition, under MCL 600.2922(6), the trial court “properly considered what was ‘fair and equitable, under all the circumstances’ by noting that appellant already recovered proceeds outside of the wrongful-death action, namely, Evelyn’s life-insurance proceeds in the amount of $100,000. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err when it granted plaintiff’s motion.” Further, it did not err in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing.