Now Accepting New Clients!


On October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a complaint as the Ward’s conservator and guardian against Respondent.  Petitioner and Respondent are siblings and the children of the Ward.  In the complaint, Petitioner alleged that she filed a petition for appointment as the Ward’s guardian and conservator because the Ward was unable to know the extent of or manage her assets. However, after the petition was filed, but before the probate court had appointed Petitioner as conservator and guardian, the Ward signed two deeds purporting to transfer the real property to Respondent and herself as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship. Petitioner further alleged that the Ward did not remember signing the deeds and did not understand their importance. Petitioner maintained that Respondent did not provide good and valuable consideration for the transfer and that he exerted undue influence over their mother. Petitioner asked the probate court to determine that the Ward was not competent at the time of the transfer, that there was not good consideration paid for the property, and that Respondent exercised undue influence over the Ward and to thus set aside the deeds. Petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens announcing the pendency of the action to set aside the deeds and clouding the title to the Farm Property. After extended litigation, the parties, through their counsel as well as the Ward’s independently-appointed counsel and her guardian ad litem, agreed to the entry of a stipulated order settling all claims. The stipulated order asserted that it resolved all issues in the action and dismissed with prejudice any remaining claims. Despite having agreed to the settlement, Respondent refused to sign the mortgage and note as required. Petitioner thus asked the probate court to order Respondent to sign the mortgage and note or, in the alternative, to place a lien on the real property. Although Respondent sought to void the probate court’s previous actions, alleging that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and claiming fraud on account of the probate court’s refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Ward’s original transfer of the Farm Property, the probate court entered a lien on the property in favor of the conservatorship, released the notice of lis pendens, and ordered that Petitioner quitclaim the property to Respondent subject to the lien. Respondent now appeals.


First, Respondent argues that the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because its order affected a property interest purportedly transferred before the conservatorship came into effect. We disagree. “Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo.” The probate court’s jurisdiction is established by statute. MCL 700.1302(c) provides that the probate court has exclusive legal and equitable jurisdiction over conservatorship proceedings. The probate court also has concurrent legal and equitable jurisdiction to determine the property rights or interests of protected individuals.


Next, citing MCR 5.407, Respondent argues that the settlement was invalid because Petitioner, as the Ward’s daughter, would benefit from it at the time of the Ward’s death as one of the Ward’s intestate heirs. We disagree. MCR 5.407 provides: A conservator may not enter into a settlement in any court on behalf of the protected person if the conservator will share in the settlement unless a guardian ad litem has been appointed to represent the protected person’s interest and has consented to such settlement in writing or on the record or the court approves the settlement over any objection. It is undisputed that Petitioner was a direct heir to the Ward and, because the Ward did not have a will, that she would receive an intestate share of the Ward’s estate after her death. However, because the Ward’s guardian ad litem (as well as her court-appointed attorney) consented to the settlement and the trial court approved the settlement as submitted, even assuming Petitioner might benefit at some future date as a result of the preservation of the Ward’s assets, the prohibition set forth MCR 5.407 is not implicated and provides no basis for appellate relief.


If you have lost a loved one, the last thing you should have to deal with at this time is the confusing and often frustrating process of probate.

Aldrich Legal Services offers comprehensive guidance throughout the probate process, including the filing of petitions, notices to creditors, distribution of assets to beneficiaries and other services required throughout the probate process. We offer probate services for clients whose loved ones died with or without a will.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

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