Will interpretation; Order for a property sale; Applicability of the statute of limitations (SOL) for breach of contract; Laches; Township of Yankee Springs v Fox; Personal representatives (PRs)

The court held that the probate court properly gave effect to the decedent’s (William) intent by ordering the liquidation of the real property at issue so that William’s children could be paid. The contract breach SOL did not apply, and the probate court did not err in rejecting appellant-Lull’s laches argument. When William died in 2007, he was married to nonparty-Michaelene. He had three children from a prior marriage – Donald, Robert, and appellee-Clark. A few months before his “death, he conveyed parcels of real property that he owned to himself and Michaelene as tenants by the entireties. Michaelene executed an agreement in consideration of the conveyances stating that she agreed to pay Clark, Donald, and Robert equal amounts totaling $200,000 within three years after William’s death.” Days later, William executed his will, devising all “his real property to Michaelene, including” the Lake Street property, but it remained titled in his name only. She continued to live there after his death. “Lull, her son, eventually moved in with her” and was appointed PR of her estate after her death. He “filed a petition to open William’s estate so that the Lake Street property could be transferred from William’s estate to Michaelene’s estate. Clark opposed the transfer on the basis that Michaelene failed to pay” the $200,000. After a bench trial, the probate court ordered that the “property be listed for sale and that $170,000 of the sale proceeds be paid to Robert’s descendants, Clark, and Donald.” The court noted that while “the will directed that the Lake Street property, in addition to others, be given to Michaelene, . . . the Lake Street property had to be liquidated in order to carry out William’s intent that his children be given $200,000. The probate court determined that ‘there was a promise to pay’ that was protected by ‘the fact that the most valuable property was titled in [William’s] name alone.’” Thus, it concluded “William had made it clear that his children would be compensated out of his estate and that the probate of the Lake Street property was inevitable if Michaelene failed to pay the $200,000.” As to Lull’s SOL argument, the “probate court did not enforce the agreement between William and Michaelene” – it interpreted his will. Finally, as to laches, Lull “failed to establish that any delay on behalf of William’s children prejudiced Michaelene or himself.” Affirmed.