Representing family members and beneficiaries in all aspects of Probate Court Litigation including will and/or trust contests, challenges to the administration and/or distribution of estate and/or trust assets, guardianship and/or conservatorship appointments.

On behalf of the children of a deceased individual, Mr. Hermann was able to recover on Summary Disposition their representative share of a life insurance policy in which their late father and his surviving sister were the only named beneficiaries. The insured under the policy was the father of the two named beneficiaries. The policy did not include or identify an alternate plan of distribution should one or more of the named beneficiaries die before the named insured. Initially, the insurance company determined that the children of the deceased beneficiary had no interest in the policy or its proceeds. On behalf of the children of the deceased beneficiary, Mr. Hermann filed an action for intervention and moved for Summary Disposition on the grounds that the children continued to maintain a beneficial interest in the policy under Michigan’s Anti-Lapse Statute set forth in MCL 700.2709. Ultimately, the court agreed declaring that under the legal  theories for claim and delivery and/or constructive trust, the children of the of the deceased beneficiary were entitled to one-half of the life insurance death benefits.

In another dispute involving the co-ownership of a life insurance policy, Mr. Hermann was able to demonstrate that the Defendant’s fraudulent actions in having her late sister’s estate  removed as an owner and/or beneficiary of a life insurance policy was an “affirmative act of concealment”  sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitation period under Michigan’s Fraudulent Concealment Statute.  The original fraudulent act occurred nine years prior to the commencement of litigation and involved Defendant mailing in falsified change of ownership forms to the insurance company making her the sole owner of the policy. When the insured ultimately died, years later, all of the benefits went to Defendant as the sole policy owner. The Probate Court initially dismissed the claim as being untimely; however, the decision was later reversed on appeal in October of 2016, in Gualdoni v Inglin, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 1894, 2016 WL 6127696. Following remand from the Court of Appeals, Mr. Hermann  obtained a judgment  against decedent's sister in the amount of $500,000.00 based upon her fraudulent actions.