Legal Opinion

Roy v. Comerica Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1986No. Docket No. 75155PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, C.J.

The issue in this case is whether a spendthrift trust which purports to give the same beneficiary an interest in both the income and the principal is valid in Michigan.

*366More particularly, the issue appears to be whether the language in Rose v Southern Michigan Nat'l Bank, 255 Mich 275, 281; 238 NW 284 (1931), "The gift to the donee must be only of the income” (followed in In re Ford Estate, 331 Mich 220, 229; 49 NW2d 154 [1951]), prevails or whether Michigan should follow the rule of the Restatement Trusts, 2d, § 153(1), p 318, comment b:

Where a beneficiary of a trust is entitled to receive…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Parker v. Port Huron HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Abendschein v. FarrellMichigan Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis Division of National Lead Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Womack v. BuchhornMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Eaton v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re DunnUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1997
  2. In Re Edgar EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API