|
No. 133098
| Jan Kay Estes, Personal Representative of the |
|
H. van den Berg Hatch |
| Estate of Douglas Duane Estes, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Kalamazoo - Johnson, J.) |
|
|
| Jeff Edward Titus, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Julie L. Swabash, f/k/a Julie L. Titus, |
|
Michael J. Toth |
| Appellant. |
|
James D. Lance |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Business Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan's Family Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
During the 1990 deer hunting season, Douglas Estes and another man were found shot to death in the Fulton State Game Area in Kalamazoo County. More than a decade later, police determined that the two victims had been murdered by Jeff Edward Titus. In 2002, Titus was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In September 2002, Jan Kay Estes, Douglas Estes’ widow, filed a wrongful death action against Titus. In November 2002, Titus’ wife, now Julie Swabash, filed for divorce. She was awarded substantially all of the marital assets in the divorce, in part to make up for Titus’ inability to provide child support for their daughter due to his imprisonment. Estes tried unsuccessfully to intervene in the divorce action. After Estes won a judgment in the wrongful death case, she moved to include Swabash in the lawsuit, so that Estes could reach the assets that had been transferred in the divorce. Estes argued that she could do so under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; Titus’ transfer of marital property in the divorce proceeding was inequitable and was intended to defraud her, Estes contended. The trial court refused Estes’ request to add Swabash as a party, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a split published opinion, holding that transfers ordered as part of the divorce judgment were subject to examination under the UFTA. Swabash appeals.
Top of Page
|
