|
No. 133847
| In re Estate of James W. Miltenberger, Deceased. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Susan Eifler, Personal Representative of the |
|
|
| Estate of James W. Miltenberger, Deceased, |
|
|
Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Sharon Miltenberger, |
|
Jeffrey A. Schubel |
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
Jennifer O. Ward |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Calhoun Probate - Harter, P.) |
|
|
| Sandra Swartz, |
|
Michael J. Toth |
| Respondent-Appellant. |
|
J. Ryan Conboy |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioner-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
Sharon Miltenberger filed for divorce from James Miltenberger, but the divorce was not finalized at the time of his death. Before his death, Miltenberger had transferred two parcels of real estate to Sandra Swartz, his daughter from a previous marriage, by quit-claim deed. Days before his death, Miltenberger executed a Last Will and Testament that eliminated Swartz, his son, and another daughter as beneficiaries of his estate. Swartz was named personal representative of Miltenberger’s estate. Before the estate proceedings were finalized, Sharon Miltenberger filed a motion seeking her dower rights under MCL 700.2202(2) and MCL 558.1. MCL 558.1 describes the right to dower as follows: “The widow of every deceased person, shall be entitled to dower, or the use during her natural life, of 1/3 part of all the lands whereof her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance, at any time during the marriage, unless she is lawfully barred thereof.” Swartz opposed Miltenberger’s request, arguing that the dower provisions violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Michigan and federal constitutions because dower rights were awarded only to women. But the trial court granted Miltenberger’s motion and rejected Swartz’s constitutional challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion. The appeals court noted that it “remains an unfortunate fact that there are still circumstances in which the surviving wife may be significantly disadvantaged, in a way that surviving husbands generally are not, in the absence of dower, and the Legislature may properly consider such circumstances through the enacted dower statute.” The Legislature has a legitimate interest in “protecting the economic interest of widows and protecting them from becoming impoverished,” the Court of Appeals said. Accordingly, Michigan’s statutory dower provisions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan or federal constitutions, the appellate panel concluded. Swartz appeals.
Top of Page
|
