Validity of a will; MCL 700.2502(1); Self-proved will; MCL 700.7204; Validity of decedent’s signature; MCL 700.2502(1)(b) & (c); Validity of witness signatures; Fraud; MCR 2.112(B)(1)

The court held that the probate court did not err by finding a genuine issue of material fact did not exist as to the validity of the will at issue, which was admitted to probate. Appellant challenged the validity of his mother’s purported will, which disinherited him. The probate court granted summary disposition for appellee (appellant’s sister), finding that although the will was “not a self-proved will” it was a “properly executed will” and formally admitted it to probate. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the decedent’s will, including whether she signed it. The “will included the decedent’s signature on the final page. Immediately preceding [her] signature, on the third page, [she] certified and declared ‘the statements in this document are true,’ ‘that this document is my will; that I sign it willingly,’ ‘I execute it as my voluntary act,’ and ‘I am eighteen years of age or older, of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.’” It was also signed by two individuals who witnessed the decedent sign it. The court also rejected appellant’s claim that because two witnesses did not recall signing the will, there remained a question of fact as to its validity. The probate court “did not err by accepting the testimony on a motion for summary disposition, which allows [it[ to consider evidence beyond the pleadings, such as depositions. In this case, due execution was proven by the testimony of” the two witnesses. Finally, the court rejected appellant’s contention that the will was fraudulent. Even if the decedent allegedly made statements about appellant’s inheritance, as he claimed, there was “no evidence that the will was rescinded or that another (more recent) will was made.” Affirmed.