Whether a party was the decedent’s surviving spouse; Validity of a marriage; MCL 551.18; MCL 551.103a; Applicability of equitable estoppel; Standing to challenge the validity of a deed; Evidentiary rulings; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; MRE 403; Authentication; MRE 901(a); Hearsay; Exception for records of a regularly conducted activity (MRE 803(6)); Whether an adverse inference should have been applied; Personal representative (PR)

Considering the totality of the evidence, the court concluded the probate court did not err by finding that the marriage between the decedent and appellant-Mack Murray was invalid. Thus, she “was not the decedent’s surviving spouse or an heir to his estate,” and she did not have standing to challenge the validity of a quitclaim deed. The decedent’s daughter, appellee-Benson, was appointed special PR and filed a petition to determine the decedent’s heirs after Mack Murray claimed to be the decedent’s surviving spouse. “Mack Murray also petitioned to determine title to the decedent’s residence, claiming that a quitclaim deed conveying the property to decedent’s son was forged.” The court first found the probate court did not err by holding that there were issues of material fact precluding summary disposition. “It was undisputed that the marriage ceremony for Mack Murray and the decedent was held one day after the marriage license had expired. Although Mack Murray argued that other circumstances established the validity of the marriage, including that she and the decedent intended to marry and that they were advised by a clerk that it was unnecessary to renew the license before the ceremony, there were questions of fact about the veracity of Mack Murray’s claims. Benson presented evidence that Mack Murray and the decedent did not intend to be legally married and intentionally waited until after the license expired for that reason. The parties also offered conflicting evidence about whether, after the ceremony, Mack Murray and the decedent lived together as a married couple and whether they held themselves out to friends, family, and government agencies as a married couple.” Thus, the validity of the marriage depended on “unresolved questions of fact that could not be decided on summary disposition[.]” Mack Murray also challenged “the probate court’s decision following the evidentiary hearing that her marriage to the decedent was invalid.” She contended “that because marriage is a contract, the acceptance of the marriage certificate by the clerk’s office, despite the expired license, was effective to ratify the license and certificate as valid.” But the court concluded that the “probate court properly considered all the circumstances to determine whether any presumptive validity of the marriage was overcome by contrary evidence introduced by Benson.” Further, the court held that “the probate court did not err by finding that Benson presented ‘clear and positive proof’ that Mack Murray’s marriage to the decedent was not valid.” Affirmed.