Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co.

8 Citing cases

  1. Shefman v. Fraser (In re Estate of Wetsman)

    No. 292350 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2012)

    MCL 600.751; MCL 600.755; In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 140; 486 NW2d 326 (1992); see also Thaw v Detroit Trust Co, 307 Mich 6, 11; 11 NW2d 305 (1943) (under then-existing Michigan law, a suit for an accounting against a testamentary trustee was an in rem proceeding brought where the trust estate was legally situated). Stephen does not address any issue that substantively involves the situs of the trust estate.

  2. James v. Gerber Products Co.

    587 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1978)   Cited 52 times
    Recognizing that the doctrine of claim preclusion applies so long as, among other requirements, a litigant had a "full and fair opportunity" to seek judicial resolution of the same issue in a prior proceeding

    Obviously, not all omissions of fact constitute actual fraud. See Thaw v. Detroit Co., 307 Mich. 6, 25, 11 N.W.2d 305 (1943). When a party contests a final judgment of the probate court on the ground of non-disclosure by the trustee, "the facts [of the] case must be considered in determining whether fraud exists."

  3. Herpolsheimer v. Herpolsheimer Co.

    75 N.W.2d 333 (Mich. 1956)   Cited 18 times

    "The courts of Kent county have exclusive jurisdiction of the William G. Herpolsheimer testamentary trust which has been administered at all times under the jurisdiction of the Kent county probate court." Under such heading, and on authority of Thaw v. Detroit Trust Company, 307 Mich. 6, appellants say that the situs of the mentioned trust is in Kent county and that the equity court of that county is exclusively possessed of jurisdiction. Plaintiff says, in answer, that the mentioned trust has been terminated.

  4. In re Swart's Estate

    51 N.W.2d 903 (Mich. 1952)   Cited 1 times

    This Court has repeatedly held that in the absence of fraud or concealment an order by the probate court approving the account of a fiduciary is final. Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co., 307 Mich. 6; In re Watson's Estate, 317 Mich. 504; In re Peck's Estate, 323 Mich. 11. In the case at bar, however, the question at issue is whether under the circumstances involved the indorsement by the judge of probate on the sixth account may be construed as an order authorizing and requiring the payment to the estate of Mr. Earle of the sum recommended by the cotrustees.

  5. In re Peck's Estate

    34 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 10 times

    Laws Supp. 1940, § 16289-4[39], Stat. Ann. 1943 Rev. § 27.3178 [290]). Heap v. Heap, 258 Mich. 250; Chapin v. Chapin, 229 Mich. 515; Thompson v. Thompson, 229 Mich. 526; Roberts v. Michigan Trust Co., 273 Mich. 91; Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co., 307 Mich. 6; In re Watson's Estate, 317 Mich. 504. Appellant further claims that settlement was made with the trust company in its individual capacity and not as trustee. It is difficult for us to see the distinction.

  6. In re Trust Created by Will of Enger

    225 Minn. 229 (Minn. 1948)   Cited 44 times
    In Enger's Will, the court stated, "Because a beneficiary may rely upon the disclosures in the trustee's account and the petition for its allowance, a proceeding for the allowance of the account does not impose upon the beneficiary as an ordinary adversary the burden of making his own inquiry to ascertain the truth of the trustee's disclosures."

    The cases and texts use the words with such meaning. Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304, 6 N.W.2d 454; Ingelson v. Olson, 199 Minn. 422, 272 N.W. 270, 110 A.L.R. 167; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 237 N.W. 15; Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co. 307 Mich. 6, 11 N.W.2d 305; Will of Pattison, 190 Wis. 289, 207 N.W. 292; 3 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 5163; 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 699; 31 Am. Jur., Judgments, § 525; 30 Am. Jur., Judgments, §§ 148, 149, 197; Restatement, Judgments, §§ 1, 41, 42. Prior to the enactment of § 501.35, the language of the statute was used to express the same thought with respect to the finality and conclusiveness of orders allowing both final and intermediate accounts of trustees.

  7. In re Watson's Estate

    27 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    The court allowed the account and denied the petition for removal. No appeal was taken therefrom, in consequence of which the circuit court properly held that all matters pertaining to the administrator's inventory and accounting from the date of his appointment to May 18, 1938, the date of the account, were res judicata. Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co., 307 Mich. 6. With reference to appellant's claim that the administrator should be surcharged with interest on all claims allowed against the estate after the first year by reason of his alleged neglect in failing to sell assets to pay debts, the circuit court properly took into consideration the fact that it was necessary to provide a home for the invalided widow who herself had a one-third interest in the farm and that in view of this "family arrangement," the burden was upon appellant to establish bad faith on the part of the administrator which was not done. Moreover, the court noted that this claim was available to appellant at the hearing on her first petition to remove the administrator; and, further, that the estate had suffered no loss therefrom inasmuch as the property would bring a higher price in the present market.

  8. In re Gray Estate

    156 N.W.2d 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 5 times

    Appellant trustee does not assert any fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation by anyone. In the case of Raseman v. Raseman (1926), 234 Mich. 237, our Supreme Court ruled that allowance of annual accounts of testamentary trustees after notice and without appeal are final and binding on all parties in interest, except for fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. See, also, In re Peck's Estate (1948), 323 Mich. 11; Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co. (1943), 307 Mich. 6. The case of Grigg v. Hanna (1938), 283 Mich. 443, is authority for the rule that an order of the probate court allowing an account of an executor or administrator is an adjudication and the general rules of res judicata are applicable.