Susan Tkachik v. Comerica, Inc.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0143n.06
Filed: March 11, 2008
Case No. 07-1140
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN TKACHIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: BOGGS, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In 1995, after 20 years of marriage, Frank
Mandeville left his wife Janet. When Janet was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, Frank didn’t
return, didn’t call, didn’t write. For at least the last 18 months of Janet’s life, Janet had no contact
with Frank. But they never divorced, Janet never sought a court declaration that he had abandoned
her, and Janet never replaced Frank as the beneficiary on her employment benefits plans. She had
worked for Comerica, Inc. and Standard Federal Bank, and had survivor benefits from both.
Shortly before her impending death, Janet tried to direct all of her assets to her sister, Susan
Tkachik, to prevent anything from going to her estranged husband Frank. Janet executed a trust and
a will, and she signed forms attempting to change the beneficiary of her Comerica and Standard
Federal benefits. After her death, Frank challenged the will and trust, but the Macomb County
(Michigan) Probate Court denied his challenge on finding that he had intentionally abandoned Janet,
and therefore, was not a “surviving spouse,” pursuant to M.C.L. § 700.2801(2)(e)(i).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
In the present case, Ms. Tkachik and Frank both claim Janet’s non-testate benefits, and the
simple fact is that, although she made some effort to do so, Janet did not do all of the things
necessary to change the beneficiary before she died, so Frank remains the beneficiary. Ms. Tkachik
sued Comerica, Standard Federal, and Frank, to stop the distribution to Frank, but the district court
rendered summary judgment against her as to all three defendants. On appeal, Ms. Tkachik reargues
the same theories she raised to the district court.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, the briefs, and the arguments by counsel, we
conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies
that law to the facts contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court
would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion,
we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --