Now Accepting New Clients!

Guardian owes fiduciary duty only to protected individual, not to spouse

The court held that defendant-Fraser did not owe plaintiff a fiduciary duty pursuant to his role as the guardian and conservator for plaintiff's spouse. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting defendants-Thomas Brennan Fraser and Thomas Brennan Fraser, PLLC summary disposition in this action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The case arose from a guardianship matter where Fraser, acting through Thomas Brennan Fraser PLLC, was appointed guardian over plaintiff's husband, J. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary disposition because Fraser, as guardian and conservator for J, owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff as J's spouse and heir. However, the court concluded that Fraser owed a duty to his ward, J, a protected individual. Plaintiff was owed no fiduciary duty. "Fraser was a public administrator appointed as guardian and conservator. MCL 700.1104(e) provides that a guardian and conservator is a fiduciary. As such, Fraser was a fiduciary." However, plaintiff was not correct in her assertion that "a fiduciary generally owes a duty to any and all interested persons, and can be subject to claims from all interested persons." To support her claim, she relied on MCL 700.1212(1), which defines a fiduciary. Plaintiff interpreted MCL 700.1212(1) as meaning that "a fiduciary owes a relationship to each heir, protected individual, and ward. This is not correct." The court noted that the specific role to which Fraser was assigned was "critically important" in determining what duty he owed and to whom he owed a duty. "The duties of a guardian are distinct from a personal representative." Plaintiff refused to acknowledge this distinction, and insisted that "all fiduciaries owe a duty to all interested persons, which is simply not correct." However, the court rejected defendants' request for sanctions.

Construction contract arbitration award upheld

In this construction contract case, the trial court did not err by denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award and, thus, did not err by granting the defendants-lien claimants and defendant-contractor (Bosco) summary...

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000