Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Old Kent Bank v. Remainder Beneficiaries

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1998No. Docket No. 106816Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeaver, J.

I agree with the majority’s holding that trustee prudence is not an issue triable by a jury. I write separately because I disagree with its reasoning in support of that conclusion. I also disagree with the majority’s holding that trustee good faith is an issue for the jury. I would hold that, with respect to inter *389vivos trusts, both trustee prudence and trustee good faith are matters for the judge, not the jury, under the Revised Probate Code, MCL 700.1 et seq.; MSA 27.5001 et seq.

The question presented, whether these remainder beneficiaries of an inter vivos trust have a right to a jury…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Abner A. Wolf, Inc. v. WalchMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Van Etten v. MANUF. NAT'L BANK OF DETROITMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Chambers v. ChambersMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Detroit Trust Co. v. BlakelyMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Kurant v. Kent Probate JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API