Now Accepting New Clients!

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

At the time of decedent’s death in December 2018, she and respondent had been married for 25 years. Apparently unbeknownst to respondent, decedent created a will and trust in 2007. Decedent named her sister, petitioner, as trustee.

Trust Agreement

The trust agreement provided that if respondent survived decedent, decedent’s personal effects would be allocated to the respondent’s Trust. Decedent intended for respondent to have the ability to use decedent’s assets, including her home, travel trailer, and other land, and that the assets be protected from respondent’s creditors. Following respondent’s death, the assets would be distributed to decedent’s nieces and nephews, including petitioner’s children. The trust agreement also included an Incontestability Provision, which provided that any person who challenged decedent’s estate or trust agreement would be disinherited.


After decedent’s death, respondent filed an objection to inventory and explained that decedent owned their marital home before they were married, but that they lived there together for their 25-year marriage and he and decedent doubled the size of the home during their marriage, using both of their money. Respondent asserted that he did not know that decedent deeded the home and vacant land to her trust in 2007.

Summary Disposition

In response, petitioner filed a petition to register the trust and disinherit respondent in accordance with the Incontestability Provision. Petitioner later moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (10).

Incontestability Provision

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

Probable cause exists when, at the time of instituting the proceeding, there was evidence that would lead a reasonable person, properly informed and advised, to conclude that there was a substantial likelihood that the challenge would be successful.

The probate court cannot grant petitioner’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because respondent established a genuine issue of material fact about that claim.

Do Not Face Probate Litigation on Your Own

Aldrich Legal Services represents clients in a wide range of probate litigation matters. Given the emotional nature of these disputes and their financial impact on all involved, it is critical that anyone involved in such a dispute retain highly qualified legal counsel. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

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