Opinion

Hund v. Holmes

  • 395 Mich. 188
  • 235 N.W.2d 331
  • 1975 Mich. LEXIS 159
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 25, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Williams
On the bench
Coleman, Fitzgerald, Kavanagh, Levin, Lindemer, Williams
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

Williams, J.

(concurring in the result). I concur in the result because MCLA 556.114; MSA 26.115(104), which applies in this case, specifically provides in pertinent part:

"if there is a general power exercisable by will with no express gift in default in the creating instrument, a residuary clause or other general language in the do-nee’s will purporting to dispose of all of the donee’s estate or property operates to exercise the power but in all other cases such a clause or language does not in itself manifest an intent to exercise a power exercisable by will. ” (Emphasis added.)

In this case the creating instrument did provide for an express gift in default. Since there is no specific exercise of the power "either expressly or by necessary implication from its [Helen M. Hund’s will’s] wording”, the language of the statute indicating that a residuary clause purporting to dispose of all the donee’s estate "does not in itself manifest an intent to exercise a power” is controlling.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.