Thomas E. Brennan

This case concerned an action by Bertil Fornell to set aside a 1966 consent judgment that declared him a spendthrift under Michigan law and appointed a bank as trustee over all his assets, along with later amendments to that judgment. The judgment arose from litigation involving corporate shares, family members, and a probate contest, and it was entered without a hearing on the spendthrift allegation but with consent of all parties; it was then amended by consent in 1968 to tie into a divorce decree dividing income and assets, and further modified in 1969. The court examined the sequence of stipulations, consents, and court orders, ultimately entering an order that ratified most terms of the declaratory judgment, adjusted certain provisions on trust duration and distributions, and directed the trustee to handle specific payments and accountings while confirming the trust's continuation until Bertil's death or July 1, 1974.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In People v. Wilson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted breaking and entering. After about 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury reported being unable to reach a verdict; the trial judge asked for their numerical division, learned it was 11 to 1, and remarked that the split was 'not very far from a verdict' before sending them back for further deliberations. The defendant appealed, arguing that the inquiry into the jury's numerical division was improper. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, adopting the rule from Brasfield v. United States that such an inquiry tends to be coercive. The court reasoned that the judge's comment implied only one additional juror needed to be persuaded, which improperly pressured the holdout juror while reinforcing the majority's position and suggested that numerical closeness equated to progress toward agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by attorney William H. Van Duzer from a 100-day suspension ordered by the State Bar Grievance Board arising from his acquisition of title to a client's apartment complex property to prevent foreclosure, along with related agreements allowing the client an opportunity to reacquire it. The court determined that Van Duzer and his law partners held the property as mortgagees in possession rather than as owners, owing fiduciary duties to account for all funds received and expended and to reconvey title upon repayment of advances plus interest. The court remanded the matter to the Grievance Board with instructions that the complaint be dismissed upon submission of satisfactory evidence that Van Duzer had provided a full accounting to the client, while assessing costs against the appellant.

criminal lawproperty

This case concerns the proper scope of judicial review for decisions by a township zoning board of appeals under Michigan law. The Michigan Supreme Court held that, unlike city zoning boards whose final decisions receive limited review via superintending control, township zoning board decisions are expressly not final under the statute and must be reviewed by the circuit court on both questions of law and fact. The circuit judge had applied an incorrect standard of review drawn from city zoning cases, which improperly limited the court to questions of law and deferred to the board's discretion. The court therefore remanded the case to the circuit court for a trial de novo on the merits.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and felonious assault after raising an insanity defense at trial. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to address conflicting Court of Appeals decisions on the propriety of prosecutorial comments to the jury about the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, including suggestions that the defendant could easily obtain release via habeas corpus. Building on its prior decision in People v. Cole, which adopted the Lyles rule requiring jury instructions that an NGRI verdict leads to commitment rather than freedom, the court examined the balance between informing jurors to avoid imprisoning those needing hospitalization and preventing verdicts based on sympathy or speculation about dispositions. The opinion emphasized the general prohibition on addressing sentencing or post-verdict outcomes but recognized limited exceptions where insanity is at issue, while cautioning against comments that might improperly influence the jury toward or away from an NGRI finding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved residents of University of Michigan-owned family apartments who filed a class action challenging a $6 monthly rent increase that the university planned to use to compensate the Ann Arbor public schools for educating their children. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin collection of the increase and obtain refunds, arguing it amounted to an illegal tax or payment. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the university, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that result. The court treated the matter as a straightforward landlord-tenant contract dispute and held that the lease terms allowed the university to raise rents with 60 days' notice without any limit on the purpose or use of the funds, so tenants had no contractual right to challenge how the increased rents would be spent.

propertybusiness & regulatorytaxes