Denial of “surviving spouse” rights under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i); “Willfully absent”; In re Estate of Von Greiff; Hearsay; MRE 803; Co-Personal Representatives (Co-PRs)

The court concluded that even if the trial court “erred by admitting the challenged hearsay testimony, any error was harmless,” and while it misapplied Von Greiff, it properly denied plaintiff-Andrea the rights of a “surviving spouse” under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i). She argued “that the trial court clearly erred by finding that she was ‘willfully absent’ for the purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i), given that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay and misapplied the framework for interpreting that statutory provision in Von Greiff.” The court found that “to the extent that the trial court arguably erred by admitting” testimony by one of the Co-PRs, “any error was harmless because the substance of her testimony was well-supported by the will itself, as the trial court correctly observed.” Andrea next argued “that the trial court misapplied Von Greiff when it concluded that she was not a ’surviving spouse’ under MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i).” The court assumed “that the trial court correctly understood that the relevant lookback period at issue in this case” was from 12/22 to 12/23. More importantly, it agreed “with the reasoning and ultimate ruling of the trial court.” It was undisputed that in 4/21, “Andrea moved to her own condominium unit with her personal belongings and ceased contributing to” her deceased husband’s (Donald) “bills or other debts accumulated during the marriage. This suggests complete physical absence.” Further, the record indicated that they “had minimal and insignificant contact after” 4/21. The court found that simply “put, the timeline of this case removes it from the scope of Von Greiff.” But it agreed “with the trial court’s implicit reasoning that because Andrea was willfully absent from Donald from” 4/21 to 8/22, the 8/22 “initiation of divorce proceedings did not revive or renew the marital relationship for the purposes of MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i).” The court concluded “that defendants rebutted the presumption that Andrea was not ‘willfully absent’ from Donald between [12/22 and 12/23] notwithstanding that divorce proceedings were ongoing during that time.” The totality of the circumstances showed “that Andrea was completely absent from Donald for a continuous period of at least one year before his death, with the specific intent to be absent.” Affirmed.