The scenario presented involves a potential challenge to a will based on undue influence. In Michigan, for a will to be considered valid, it must be executed by a testator who has the requisite testamentary capacity and is free from undue influence, fraud, or duress. Undue influence is generally defined as the exercise of pressure or influence over the testator that overcomes their free will and judgment, causing them to make a will that they would not have otherwise made. Key factors Michigan courts consider when evaluating undue influence include the influencer’s susceptibility to influence, the influencer’s opportunity to exert influence, the influencer’s disposition to exert influence, and the outcome of the testamentary act. In this case, Mr. Abernathy, a widower with declining health and increasing reliance on his caregiver, Ms. Gable, made significant changes to his will, substantially benefiting Ms. Gable. The fact that Mr. Abernathy was experiencing cognitive decline, was largely isolated from his natural heirs, and that Ms. Gable actively participated in arranging for the will’s execution and was present during discussions about the changes, are all factors that raise suspicion. Michigan law does not require a direct causal link between the influence and the specific provisions, but rather looks at whether the influence was sufficient to overcome the testator’s free agency. The significant deviation from his previous testamentary plan, particularly the disinheritance of his long-standing beneficiaries in favor of a recent caregiver, further supports a claim of undue influence. The question asks about the most likely outcome if a will contest is filed on these grounds. Given the factual circumstances described, which align with common indicia of undue influence, a Michigan court would likely find that the will is invalid due to undue influence.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7101 et seq., governs the creation, administration, and termination of trusts in Michigan. A key aspect of trust law is the concept of “trustee powers.” Section 700.7801 of the Michigan Trust Code outlines the powers conferred upon a trustee. Unless the terms of the trust provide otherwise, a trustee has all the powers conferred upon a trustee by the terms of the trust, and by the Michigan Trust Code. MCL § 700.7817 provides a non-exhaustive list of specific powers that a trustee may exercise, including the power to sell, lease, mortgage, or otherwise deal with trust property. This includes the ability to enter into contracts relating to the trust property. The question asks about the trustee’s authority to grant an exclusive five-year lease on trust-owned farmland in Michigan. Under MCL § 700.7817(1)(c), a trustee has the power to “sell, encumber, partition, divide, grant options concerning, lease, or otherwise dispose of any property of the trust estate for cash or credit, at public or private sale, and at any time and upon any terms.” The duration of the lease, five years, is a reasonable term for farmland and falls within the general grant of leasing power. The “exclusive” nature of the lease does not inherently invalidate it; rather, it defines the terms of the tenant’s possession. The trustee’s fiduciary duty to act prudently and in the best interest of the beneficiaries would govern the exercise of this power, but the power itself exists. Therefore, the trustee possesses the authority to grant such a lease.

In Michigan, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of estates. When a will is presented for probate and a challenge arises concerning its validity, the court will examine the circumstances surrounding its execution. A will can be challenged on various grounds, including lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, or improper execution. Improper execution, as defined by Michigan law, typically requires the will to be signed by the testator and by at least two witnesses, each witnessing the testator’s signing or acknowledgment of the signature. If the will was signed by the testator and then presented to the witnesses who signed in the testator’s presence, and the testator acknowledged the signature to them, this generally satisfies the witnessing requirement. The scenario describes the testator signing the will, then the witnesses signing in the testator’s presence, and the testator subsequently acknowledging their signature to the witnesses. This sequence aligns with Michigan’s statutory requirements for due execution, assuming all other formalities like the testator being of sound mind and not under duress were met, which are not disputed in this specific challenge. Therefore, the will is likely to be admitted to probate.

Under Michigan law, specifically MCL 700.2507, a will is generally revoked by a subsequent writing that revokes the former will. This writing must be executed with the same formalities as a will. Alternatively, MCL 700.2507(2)(b) provides that a will may be revoked by an act of the testator done with intent to revoke, which includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will, or causing it to be done in the testator’s presence. The key here is the testator’s intent to revoke. Simply writing “This is not my will” on a copy of a validly executed will, without more, does not constitute a legally effective revocation under Michigan law. The act must be done to the original will itself, not a copy, and must demonstrate a clear intent to revoke the entire testamentary instrument. The testator’s statement, while indicative of a change of mind, lacks the physical act of destruction or obliteration on the original document required for revocation by act. Therefore, the original will remains valid.

In Michigan, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), adopted as MCL § 566.31 et seq., governs situations where a debtor attempts to transfer assets to defraud creditors. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor concerning the debtor’s property. Alternatively, a transfer can be constructively fraudulent if it is made without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange and the debtor was engaged or about to engage in a business or transaction for which the debtor’s remaining assets were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or the debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that they would incur, debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. The Act provides remedies for creditors, including avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, or an attachment of the asset transferred or its proceeds. For a transfer to be considered fraudulent under the UVTA, the intent to defraud or the constructive elements must be present at the time of the transfer. The key is whether the transfer diminished the debtor’s estate to the prejudice of existing or future creditors. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy’s transfer of his sole asset, the lakefront property, to his son for nominal consideration, immediately before filing for bankruptcy and knowing his substantial debts, clearly demonstrates an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors. The transfer was made without receiving reasonably equivalent value, and it left Mr. Abernathy with no assets to satisfy his outstanding obligations. Therefore, the transfer is voidable by his creditors.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.2502, outlines the requirements for a valid will. For a holographic will to be valid in Michigan, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Oral wills, or nuncupative wills, are not recognized in Michigan. A will signed by witnesses is a formal will, and while holographic wills can be valid without witnesses in some jurisdictions, Michigan law does not explicitly recognize holographic wills as a distinct category with relaxed witness requirements if they are not entirely in the testator’s handwriting. However, the critical factor here is that the will is *entirely* in the testator’s handwriting. If the entire document, including the signature and any testamentary intent, is in the testator’s handwriting, it meets the fundamental requirement of being in the testator’s handwriting. The presence or absence of witnesses is a separate consideration for formal wills. Since the question specifies the entire will is in the testator’s handwriting, and it clearly expresses testamentary intent, it is considered valid in Michigan as a holographic will. The key is the complete handwritten nature of the document. The fact that it was not witnessed is irrelevant for a holographic will, provided it meets the handwriting requirement.

In Michigan, a trust can be modified or terminated if all beneficiaries consent and the modification or termination does not frustrate a material purpose of the trust. This principle is derived from the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified by Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.7411. The statute outlines the conditions under which a trust can be modified or terminated by consent of the beneficiaries. For modification, the trust can be altered if all beneficiaries consent and the proposed change does not contravene a material purpose of the settlor. For termination, the trust can be ended if all beneficiaries consent and the court concludes that continuance of the trust is not necessary to continue a material purpose of the trust. A material purpose is generally understood to be a purpose that the settlor intended to be achieved through the trust’s continued existence, such as providing for a beneficiary’s long-term support or protecting assets from creditors. In this scenario, the settlor’s intent to provide for the beneficiary’s lifelong education and to protect the principal from the beneficiary’s creditors represents a material purpose. Therefore, even with the beneficiary’s consent, the trust cannot be terminated or modified in a way that would defeat these core objectives. The trust’s continuation is necessary to fulfill the settlor’s expressed intent to ensure ongoing educational support and asset protection.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7401, addresses the creation of trusts. A trust is generally created by a settlor who has capacity to create a trust and who manifests intent to create a trust. The trust must have a definite beneficiary, unless it is a charitable trust or a trust for the care of an animal or a trust for a valid purpose. The trustee must have duties to perform. The trust property, also known as the trust corpus or res, must be identifiable. For trusts involving interests in land, the trust instrument must be in writing. For trusts not involving land, oral trusts are generally permissible in Michigan, provided the other elements are met. However, the Statute of Frauds, as incorporated into trust law, often requires certain trusts, particularly those involving land or those that cannot be performed within one year, to be in writing. In this scenario, the trust concerns real property located in Michigan. Therefore, the Michigan Statute of Frauds, which applies to contracts and conveyances of land, mandates that the trust instrument must be in writing to be enforceable. An oral declaration of trust concerning real estate is insufficient under Michigan law. The settlor’s intent to create a trust, the identification of the trust property (the lakefront property), and the appointment of a trustee are all present, but the lack of a written instrument for the real property is the critical deficiency.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7101 et seq., governs the creation and administration of trusts within the state. A crucial aspect of trust administration involves the trustee’s duty to inform and report to the beneficiaries. MCL § 700.7813 outlines the trustee’s duty to keep the qualified beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration. This includes providing a copy of the trust instrument, notifying beneficiaries of the trust’s existence, and furnishing an annual report. The annual report must include a statement of accounts showing receipts, disbursements, and distributions of principal and income for the preceding fiscal year. It should also detail the assets held by the trust, including their market values. In this scenario, the trustee failed to provide the annual report for the fiscal year 2022. This constitutes a breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duty under Michigan law. The beneficiaries have the right to demand this information. The specific remedy available to the beneficiaries in such a situation, without needing to prove irreparable harm or a complete breakdown of trust administration, is the ability to compel the trustee to provide the required information. This is a fundamental aspect of beneficiary oversight and ensuring the trustee is acting in accordance with the trust terms and the law. The beneficiaries are entitled to receive the annual report as mandated by statute.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCLS § 700.7302, addresses the termination of a trust. This statute outlines several conditions under which a trust may be terminated. One key provision allows for termination if the trustee and all beneficiaries consent, provided that termination is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. Another avenue for termination is through court order if certain criteria are met, such as the trust becoming uneconomical to administer or if all beneficiaries agree and the court finds it equitable. In the given scenario, the trust’s sole purpose was to provide for the education of Elara and Mateo. Since both Elara and Mateo have completed their post-graduate studies, the original purpose of the trust has been fulfilled. This fulfillment means that the trust no longer serves its intended material purpose. Therefore, under MCLS § 700.7302(1)(c), which allows termination when the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled, the trust can be terminated. The trustee’s role is to administer the trust according to its terms and the law. As the educational purpose is complete, continuing the trust would be contrary to its fundamental design and would not serve any remaining material purpose. The statute does not require consent from a grantor who is deceased if the trust’s purpose is otherwise fulfilled.

In Michigan, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), found in MCL § 566.31 et seq., governs when a transfer of property can be challenged by creditors. A transfer is considered fraudulent as to a creditor if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Alternatively, a transfer is fraudulent if it is made without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the asset, and the debtor was engaged or was about to engage in a business or transaction for which the debtor’s remaining assets were unreasonably small in relation to the transaction. MCL § 566.34 outlines these conditions. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy transferred his lakefront property to his daughter, Beatrice, for a nominal sum. At the time of the transfer, Mr. Abernathy was facing significant and mounting medical bills, and his primary source of income was about to cease due to his impending retirement. The transfer was made without Mr. Abernathy receiving reasonably equivalent value. The property was his most significant asset, and its transfer left him with “unreasonably small” assets to cover his known and foreseeable debts, particularly his substantial medical expenses. Therefore, the transfer would likely be deemed fraudulent under the UVTA, allowing creditors to seek its avoidance.

In Michigan, the concept of a “pour-over” will is governed by the Uniform Probate Code, adopted with modifications. A pour-over will directs that the assets of the testator, after payment of debts and expenses, be distributed to a trust. This trust must be in existence at the time the will is executed or the testator’s death. Michigan Compiled Laws Section 700.2513 addresses the validity of such trusts and the pour-over provisions. Specifically, it validates a transfer of property by will to a trust or a testament to a trust, even if the trust is amendable or revocable, or if the trustee is the same person as the testator or a co-trustee, provided the trust is identified in the will and its terms are set forth in a written instrument. The key is that the trust must be established and its terms ascertainable at the time of the will’s execution or at the testator’s death. If the trust is invalidated, the will’s provisions for the trust will fail, and the property will pass as if the testator had died intestate or as directed by other provisions of the will. The explanation does not involve any calculations.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCLS § 700.7401, addresses the effect of a beneficiary’s death on a trust. When a trust instrument specifies that a beneficiary’s interest terminates upon their death and designates a successor beneficiary, the deceased beneficiary’s interest ceases to exist. This means that the deceased beneficiary’s estate or heirs do not acquire any interest in the trust property that was designated for that beneficiary. The trust property then passes directly to the named successor beneficiary, as per the grantor’s intent expressed in the trust document. This principle is fundamental to understanding how contingent and successive interests operate within trusts, ensuring that the grantor’s wishes regarding the distribution of assets are honored even after the death of an initial beneficiary. The specific wording of the trust instrument is paramount in determining the disposition of the trust assets in such circumstances.

In Michigan, a trust is generally considered irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly permit revocation or amendment. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Michigan as the Michigan Trust Code (MCL § 700.701 et seq.), provides specific rules regarding trust modification and termination. While a grantor can typically revoke or amend a revocable trust, an irrevocable trust, by its nature, cannot be altered by the grantor after its creation without the consent of all beneficiaries or a court order, or unless the trust instrument itself provides for such modification. In this scenario, the trust instrument explicitly states it is irrevocable. Therefore, the grantor cannot unilaterally revoke or amend it. The beneficiaries, by their actions in continuing to receive distributions and not objecting to the trust’s terms, have implicitly accepted its provisions. MCL § 700.7411 outlines circumstances under which an irrevocable trust may be modified or terminated, such as by the consent of all beneficiaries if modification or termination is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, or by court order. However, without such consent or a court order, and given the express irrevocability, the grantor’s intent to revoke is ineffective. The question tests the understanding of the fundamental distinction between revocable and irrevocable trusts and the legal implications of an irrevocable designation under Michigan law.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7401, governs the enforceability of spendthrift provisions. A spendthrift provision is a clause in a trust that restricts the beneficiary’s ability to alienate or anticipate their interest in the trust income or principal. In Michigan, such provisions are generally valid and enforceable, meaning creditors typically cannot reach the beneficiary’s interest in the trust until it is actually distributed to them. However, there are specific exceptions to this rule. These exceptions are carved out to prevent the spendthrift provision from being used to shield assets from certain types of claims. The most significant exceptions in Michigan law, mirroring common law principles and many state statutes, include claims for child support, alimony (spousal support), and, in some circumstances, claims by the state for public assistance provided to the beneficiary. The rationale behind these exceptions is that public policy favors ensuring that individuals meet their obligations to their dependents and the state. Therefore, a creditor seeking to enforce a claim for unpaid child support would be able to reach the beneficiary’s interest in the trust, notwithstanding the spendthrift clause. The question asks about a creditor seeking to enforce a judgment for a commercial debt. Commercial debts do not fall under the recognized exceptions to spendthrift protection in Michigan. Thus, the spendthrift provision would be effective against this type of creditor.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7101 et seq., governs the creation and administration of trusts. When a trust is established for the benefit of a specific group of individuals, such as the children of a named person, and that group is not clearly defined or ascertainable at the time of the trust’s creation or at the time the interest is to vest, the trust may fail for indefiniteness. This is particularly true if the trustee lacks discretion to select beneficiaries from a broader class. In this scenario, the trust attempts to benefit “all future descendants of Elara Vance.” While Elara Vance is a living person, the class of “all future descendants” is not ascertainable at the time of the trust’s creation. Michigan law, like general trust principles, requires a definite or ascertainable beneficiary for a valid express trust, unless the trust is charitable or the trustee has a power to select beneficiaries from a class. Since no such power is granted and the trust is not charitable, the beneficiaries are not sufficiently definite. Therefore, the trust would likely be deemed void due to an unascertainable beneficiary class. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Michigan, emphasizes the need for ascertainable beneficiaries for private trusts. The principle is that a trust must have a definite or ascertainable beneficiary at the time the interest is to be enjoyed. A class of beneficiaries is ascertainable if it is possible to determine who the members of the class are, or if there is a reasonable method for determining them. “All future descendants” is an open-ended and ever-expanding class that cannot be ascertained at the time of the trust’s creation or at any specific point in time for distribution without further definition or a power of appointment.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCLS § 700.7401, addresses the modification or termination of trusts. Under this statute, a trustee can petition the court to modify or terminate a trust if, due to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, the continuation of the trust would substantially impair its purpose. Alternatively, if the trustee believes the trust’s purpose has been fulfilled or has become unlawful, impossible, or impracticable to achieve, they may also seek court intervention. Furthermore, MCLS § 700.7402 allows for modification or termination by consent of all beneficiaries, provided the modification or termination does not approximate any material purpose of the trust. In the given scenario, the trust’s purpose was to provide for the education of Elara’s grandchildren. With all grandchildren having completed their advanced degrees and secured stable employment, the original purpose of the trust has been fulfilled. Therefore, the trustee, acting in accordance with the Michigan Trust Code, can seek court approval to terminate the trust. The key legal basis for this action is the fulfillment of the trust’s purpose, rendering its continuation unnecessary and aligning with the principles of trust administration under Michigan law.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established under a Michigan will. The key issue is the interpretation of the trust’s spendthrift provision and its enforceability against a judgment creditor. Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.2502, governs the validity of wills and testamentary trusts. Spendthrift provisions, designed to protect a beneficiary’s interest from creditors, are generally enforceable in Michigan, subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions typically include claims for child support, alimony, or for services rendered in the creation or preservation of the trust property itself. In this case, the judgment against Mr. Abernathy is for a personal debt unrelated to the trust’s administration or the beneficiary’s support obligations. Therefore, the spendthrift clause in the testamentary trust, as validly created under Michigan law, would prevent the creditor from reaching the trust principal or income to satisfy Mr. Abernathy’s personal debt. The trust’s terms dictate that distributions are made at the trustee’s discretion, further shielding the assets from direct creditor attachment, as creditors can generally only reach what the beneficiary is entitled to receive, not what the trustee may choose to distribute. The creditor’s recourse would typically be to seek a court order attaching any distributions that are actually made to Mr. Abernathy, rather than directly seizing trust assets.

In Michigan, the concept of “after-acquired property” refers to assets that a testator obtains after executing their will. Under Michigan law, a will generally disposes of all property the testator owns at the time of their death, including property acquired after the will’s execution, unless the will explicitly indicates a contrary intent. This principle is rooted in the idea that a will speaks as of the date of the testator’s death. Therefore, if Elara executed her will on January 15, 2020, and subsequently purchased a parcel of land in Traverse City on March 10, 2022, that land would pass according to the terms of her will, provided the will was not revoked or amended and did not contain language limiting its scope to property owned at the time of execution. The relevant Michigan statute, MCL § 700.2506, supports this by stating that a will is construed to speak as of the date of the testator’s death. This ensures that the testator’s intent is carried out with respect to their entire estate at the time of passing, preventing unintended intestacy for newly acquired assets.

In Michigan, a trust created for the benefit of a specific pet during its lifetime is generally considered a valid “pet trust” under MCL §700.2721. This statute specifically permits the creation of trusts for the care of animals alive during the settlor’s lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last surviving animal for which the trust was created. Any remaining assets in the trust at termination are then distributed according to the terms of the trust instrument. If the trust instrument does not specify a remainder beneficiary, the assets would typically revert to the settlor’s estate, subject to the laws of intestacy or the provisions of the settlor’s will. Therefore, when the last of the named pets, Barnaby and Clementine, dies, the trust terminates, and the remaining corpus passes to the residuary beneficiaries designated in Eleanor Vance’s will.

The scenario involves a residuary beneficiary who predeceases the testator, and the will contains a residuary clause that does not specify an alternative disposition. Under Michigan law, specifically MCL 700.2603, if a devisee who is a grandparent or lineal descendant of a grandparent of the testator fails to survive the testator, the devisee’s issue take the devise in place of the devisee. This statute applies to all types of devises, including residuary devises. In this case, Eleanor was the testator’s niece, making her a descendant of the testator’s grandparent. Her son, Finn, is Eleanor’s issue. Therefore, Finn is entitled to take Eleanor’s share of the residuary estate. The residuary estate is the entire estate remaining after specific and general bequests have been satisfied. Since the will does not specify an alternative beneficiary for Eleanor’s share, and Eleanor has surviving issue, the anti-lapse statute dictates that Finn inherits her portion. This prevents the residuary estate from passing as intestate property.

In Michigan, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in that will. Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.2302, addresses the rights of such heirs. Generally, a pretermitted heir is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. However, there are specific exceptions to this rule. If the testator’s failure to provide for the pretermitted heir was intentional and this intention appears from the will itself, the heir will not inherit. Furthermore, if the testator had one or more children living when the will was executed and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted heir, the pretermitted heir will not receive a share. In the scenario presented, Elara executed her will in 2015, devising her entire estate to her spouse, Marcus. Her daughter, Anya, was born in 2017, after the will’s execution. Elara’s will does not mention Anya, nor does it indicate any intention to disinherit her. The will was executed when Elara had no children. Therefore, Anya is a pretermitted heir. Since the will was executed before Anya’s birth and does not evidence an intent to disinherit her, and the exception regarding having other children at the time of execution does not apply (as Elara had no children then), Anya is entitled to an intestate share of Elara’s estate. The intestate share for a surviving spouse and one child in Michigan, under MCL § 700.2102, is that the surviving spouse receives one-half of the estate, and the child receives one-half.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7302, addresses the enforceability of trusts against the settlor’s creditors. When a settlor retains a beneficial interest in a trust, the trust is generally considered revocable for the purposes of creditor claims, unless the settlor has irrevocably transferred assets. However, even in the case of an irrevocable trust, certain provisions can limit the settlor’s ability to shield assets from creditors. Specifically, if a settlor retains the right to receive income from the trust, or has the power to revoke or amend the trust, or retains a beneficial interest that is not contingent upon surviving the trustee or other beneficiaries, the trust assets can be subject to the settlor’s creditors. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy, by retaining the right to receive all income from the trust for his lifetime, has retained a beneficial interest that makes the trust assets available to his creditors. This is because the income interest is a present beneficial interest, and the trust, while styled as irrevocable for other purposes, is effectively treated as revocable with respect to his creditors due to this retained interest. Therefore, his creditors can reach the trust property to satisfy their claims, up to the value of his retained income interest.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by Elias, a resident of Michigan, for the benefit of his niece, Clara. Elias’s will specifies that the trust’s income is to be distributed to Clara during her lifetime, and upon her death, the principal is to be divided equally among her surviving children. The question concerns the legal implications of Clara’s attempt to assign her interest in the trust to a third party, Mr. Abernathy, a creditor. In Michigan, the ability to assign a beneficial interest in a trust is governed by the principle of alienability of interests. Generally, a beneficiary’s interest in a trust is assignable unless the trust instrument prohibits it or the interest is subject to a spendthrift provision. Michigan law, specifically MCL 700.7105, addresses the assignment of beneficial interests in trusts. This statute generally permits a beneficiary to assign their interest. However, the crucial factor here is whether Elias’s will contained any language that would restrict Clara’s ability to assign her interest. Without such a restriction, Clara’s assignment to Mr. Abernathy would be valid. The question tests the understanding of the general rule regarding the assignability of trust interests and the exceptions, particularly the role of the trust instrument itself. Since the facts provided do not mention any spendthrift clause or other express prohibition in Elias’s will, the default rule of assignability applies. Therefore, Clara’s assignment of her income interest to Mr. Abernathy is legally permissible under Michigan law.

The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), adopted in Michigan as MCL § 566.31 et seq., governs situations where a debtor transfers assets to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. A transfer is deemed fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Alternatively, a transfer can be constructively fraudulent if it is made without receiving reasonably equivalent value and the debtor was engaged or about to engage in a business or transaction for which the debtor’s remaining assets were unreasonably small, or the debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that they would incur, debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. In this scenario, the transfer of the cabin to Elara for $10,000, when its fair market value is $150,000, clearly lacks reasonably equivalent value. Furthermore, given that Silas was already facing significant business debts and the transfer depleted his primary asset, it strongly suggests that he was engaged in a transaction where his remaining assets were unreasonably small. Therefore, the transfer is voidable by Silas’s creditors under the UVTA. The creditors can seek remedies such as avoidance of the transfer, an attachment of the asset transferred, or other relief the court deems proper. The key is the lack of reasonably equivalent value coupled with the debtor’s financial distress, which are hallmarks of a constructively fraudulent transfer under Michigan law.

In Michigan, a trust that is not for the benefit of ascertainable beneficiaries and lacks a definite purpose, often termed a “trust for a non-charitable purpose” or “honorary trust,” is generally not enforceable as a traditional trust. However, Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.2701, allows for the creation of trusts for a specific period, even without ascertainable beneficiaries, provided they serve a lawful purpose. This statute draws from the Uniform Trust Code. For a trust to be valid and enforceable in Michigan, it typically requires definite beneficiaries or a charitable purpose. When a trust is established for a purpose that is not charitable and lacks definite beneficiaries, it may be considered an “improper purpose” trust. In such cases, the trust property would generally revert to the settlor or their estate. However, the statute allows for a limited duration for such trusts, up to 21 years, if the purpose is not illegal. If the trust’s purpose is not illegal but merely indefinite and non-charitable, the court has discretion to appoint a trustee and a person to enforce the trust. If the trust is for a purpose that is not charitable and not illegal, and no trustee is appointed, the court can appoint a trustee. If the purpose is not illegal and the trust is for a period not exceeding 21 years, it can be valid. In this scenario, the trust for the upkeep of a specific, non-memorial tomb, without ascertainable beneficiaries and not for a charitable purpose, falls into this category. Michigan law permits such trusts for a period not exceeding 21 years. Therefore, the trust is valid for this duration.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7401, addresses the modification or termination of trusts. This section outlines the circumstances under which a trust can be modified or terminated, including by consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor, or if modification or termination would achieve the settlor’s purposes while being not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the settlor, Elara Vance, created a trust for the benefit of her grandchildren, intending to provide for their education and general welfare. The trust instrument explicitly states that the trust is irrevocable and that its purpose is to ensure long-term financial security for the beneficiaries, with a specific provision for the distribution of remaining assets to a wildlife conservation charity upon the death of the last grandchild. The trustee, Mr. Sterling, has proposed a modification to distribute a portion of the principal to each grandchild for a down payment on a home. While this distribution might align with the general welfare aspect, it potentially contravenes the material purpose of long-term financial security and the specific remainder interest. Under MCL § 700.7401(2)(b), a trust may be modified if the court concludes that the trust’s purpose has been fulfilled or has become unlawful, impossible, or impracticable to achieve. However, the grandchildren are still young, and the purpose of long-term financial security is not yet fulfilled. Furthermore, MCL § 700.7401(2)(c) allows modification if all beneficiaries and the trustee consent, and the modification is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. In this case, while the grandchildren (as beneficiaries) might consent, the settlor’s intent regarding long-term security and the specific remainder interest to the charity represents a material purpose that the proposed early distribution could frustrate. The trustee cannot unilaterally modify the trust for such a purpose without the settlor’s consent or a court order based on the grounds specified in the statute. Therefore, the trustee’s proposal, without the settlor’s agreement or a court’s finding that the material purpose is not frustrated, is not permissible under the Michigan Trust Code.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL § 700.7401, addresses the creation of trusts. A trust can be created by a grantor who either: 1) conveys or devises property to a trustee, or 2) declares himself or herself trustee of property. The trust must have a definite beneficiary, unless the trust is a charitable trust, a trust for the care of an animal, or a trust for the disposal of remains. A definite beneficiary is generally a living person or ascertainable class of persons. The trust also requires a trust purpose. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy clearly intended to create a trust for the benefit of his niece, Eleanor, and he identified the trust property as his antique coin collection. The question is whether the trust is validly created despite the absence of a formal named trustee. Michigan law permits a trust to be created without a formally appointed trustee if the grantor conveys or devises property to a trustee. Here, Mr. Abernathy’s intent to create a trust is evident through his written instructions. While he did not name a specific trustee, the Michigan Trust Code anticipates this by allowing the court to appoint a trustee if one is not designated or if the designated trustee is unable or unwilling to serve. Therefore, the trust is not invalid solely due to the lack of a named trustee, as the court can fulfill this role to effectuate the grantor’s intent and the trust’s purpose. The core elements of intent, trust property, and a definite beneficiary are present.

In Michigan, a trust is generally considered irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly permit revocation or amendment. The Uniform Trust Code (UTC), as adopted and modified in Michigan, provides specific rules regarding the modification and termination of trusts. Under Michigan law, an irrevocable trust can be modified or terminated without the consent of all beneficiaries if certain conditions are met. Specifically, MCL § 700.7410 allows for modification or termination if the trustee and all beneficiaries consent, or if the trust’s purpose has become unlawful, impracticable, or impossible to achieve. However, a more nuanced provision, MCL § 700.7411, addresses modification or termination by consent of the grantor and all beneficiaries. If the grantor is still alive and has capacity, their consent, along with that of all beneficiaries, can lead to modification or termination. If the grantor is deceased or incapacitated, then modification or termination requires the consent of all beneficiaries whose consent is needed to achieve the purposes of the trust, and the modification or termination does not conflict with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the trust is explicitly stated as irrevocable. The grantor, Ms. Anya Sharma, is still living and has capacity. Therefore, her consent, as the grantor, is crucial. Furthermore, for a trust to be modified or terminated by consent under Michigan law when the grantor is alive and has capacity, all beneficiaries must also consent. Since the trust is irrevocable and the grantor is alive and capable, the modification requires the grantor’s consent and the consent of all beneficiaries whose interests are affected by the modification. If any beneficiary’s interest would be adversely affected by the modification, their consent is necessary. Assuming all beneficiaries’ interests are affected, the modification would require the consent of Ms. Sharma and all beneficiaries. If, however, the modification does not affect the interests of a particular beneficiary, that beneficiary’s consent might not be required. Given the question states “all beneficiaries,” it implies that their consent is needed for a complete modification without court intervention. The scenario does not mention court intervention. Therefore, the correct approach is the grantor’s consent combined with the consent of all beneficiaries.

The scenario involves a testator, Elara Vance, domiciled in Michigan, who executed a will in 2018. She subsequently moved to Florida and passed away there in 2023. Her will, which was valid under Michigan law at the time of execution, designates her nephew, Silas, as the sole beneficiary. Elara also left a handwritten note dated 2020, discovered among her personal effects, which purports to revoke her prior will and bequeath a specific antique clock to her friend, Beatrice. The core legal issue is the validity of the handwritten note as a revocation of the Michigan will, considering Elara’s change in domicile and the nature of the note. Michigan law, specifically MCL § 700.2507, governs the revocation of wills. Under this statute, a will can be revoked by a subsequent instrument that is executed in the same manner as a will, or by a physical act of destruction done with the intent to revoke. A holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is generally recognized for probate in Michigan if it meets the statutory requirements for execution, even if not witnessed. However, the note in question is not presented as a complete will but as an instrument of revocation. The critical factor here is whether the handwritten note, even if entirely in Elara’s handwriting, can effectively revoke a formally executed Michigan will without being executed with the same formalities as a will (i.e., witnessed). Michigan law does not generally recognize informal revocations of formally executed wills unless the revocation itself is executed with testamentary formalities or constitutes a physical act of destruction. A mere handwritten note, even if holographic, that does not meet the execution requirements of a Michigan will (MCL § 700.2502) would not be considered a subsequent instrument revoking the prior will. Furthermore, the note does not describe a physical act of destruction of the 2018 will. While Elara’s change of domicile to Florida might introduce Florida law considerations regarding revocation, the question implicitly asks about the effect under Michigan law, as the will was executed in Michigan and the exam is for Michigan Wills, Trusts, and Estates. Even if Florida law were to recognize holographic instruments more broadly for revocation, Michigan courts would likely apply Michigan’s statutory requirements for revoking a Michigan-domiciled testator’s will, especially if the will is probated in Michigan. Therefore, the handwritten note, lacking testamentary formalities or constituting a physical act of destruction, is insufficient to revoke the 2018 Michigan will.