Now Accepting New Clients!



This case concerns a dispute regarding the disbursement of Lakeside Trust Number 1 (“Lakeside Trust”), a trust created by appellee in relation to her mother’s trust, the EJA Trust . The grantor and settlor of the EJA Trust, in Article Fourteen of the Fifth Amendment to the EJA Trust, identified Fifth Third Bank & Trust Company (Fifth Third) as Settlor’s successor trustee. Settlor amended her trust in 2012. In the Sixth Amendment to the EJA Trust, she directed her successor trustee upon her death to divide the balance of the EJA Trust estate into equal shares to be distributed to her children. Settlor further directed the successor trustee to place one of the beneficiary’s share, if he survived Settlor into a separate trust for his benefit. The EJA amendment in relevant part directed:  The Trustee of the beneficiary’s trust shall invest all the trust assets in a federally insured financial institution and disburse to Jerrold such portions of interest and principal as the Trustee, in their sole and absolute discretion, determines. The Trustee is further authorized to distribute nothing to beneficiary if the Trustee determines, in their sole and absolute discretion, that it is not in Jerrold’s best interest to receive any such funds, and in such case, the Trustee is authorized to terminate the trust and disburse all trust assets, whether it be principal, interest, or income, to my surviving children at the time Jerrold’s trust is terminated, share and share alike. In the event there are assets in the beneficiary’s trust at the time of the beneficiary’s death, the Trustee shall disburse all remaining assets held in trust to my surviving children at the time of beneficiary’s death, share and share alike.

Appellant asserted that he received $66,878.67, but remained entitled to receive an additional $50,783.53. Appellee moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on the grounds that the law did not support appellant’s claims because the Lakeside Trust remained revocable and her sole duty as trustee was owed exclusively to the settlor, herself, under MCL 700.7603(1). Appellee asserted that the Lakeside Trust would become irrevocable only upon the death of appellee. The trial court found that “no factual development could possibly justify recovery” and granted appellee’s motion for summary disposition. The trial court also found that appellee made the distribution appropriately under both the EJA Trust and the Lakeside Trust . Appellee responded that appellant had not established his entitlement to reconsideration because appellant had not demonstrated that the court or the partiers were misled by a palpable error and that a different disposition of the motion must result from such error. The trial court concluded that appellant’s motion for reconsideration was not well-grounded in fact or law and failed to meet the requirements of MCR 2.119(F). The trial court ruled that appellant’s receipt of $66,878.67, amounted to all to which appellant was entitled.


A trial court’s grant of a motion for summary disposition is de novo to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A trial court’s interpretation of a trust agreement is also reviewed de novo.


 Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition in favor of appellee. “A court must ascertain and give effect to the settlor’s intent when resolving a dispute concerning the meaning of a trust.” The record reflects that appellee created the Lakeside Trust on June 19, 2013, to fulfill the directive set forth in the EJA Trust. She identified herself as the grantor and settlor of the Lakeside Trust, appointed herself as trustee, and reserved for herself broad discretionary rights to control the Lakeside Trust’s assets and to revoke the trust in her sole discretion. Paragraph 4 specified the purpose of the trust which language mirrored the provisions of the EJA Trust that directed the beneficiary’s trust’s trustee to make discretionary disbursement of trust assets to the beneficiary during his lifetime, and upon his death that the trust would terminate, whereupon the trust’s assets would be disbursed equally to Settlor’s surviving children.  Four of the Settlor’s children remained alive at the time of the beneficiary’s death which terminated the Lakeside Trust requiring the distribution of its assets. According to the terms of the EJA Trust, the assets of the Lakeside Trust were to be disbursed in equal amounts to Settlor’s four surviving children. Distribution of the Lakeside Trust’s assets totaling $276,895.24 equally between Settlor’s four surviving children would have required that each child receive $69,223.81. The trial court explained that the undisputed value of the Lakeside Trust at the time of its termination amounted to approximately $277,000, which when divided by four approximately equaled the amount appellee distributed minus the $10,000 certificate of deposit that remained deposited until its maturity date. The trial court confirmed that, upon maturity of the certificate of deposit, each of Settlor’s surviving children will receive an additional equal distribution of the proceeds which amounts to $2,500. When added to the amount already distributed to each of Settlor’s surviving children, each child will receive a total of $69,378.67. That amount comports with the directive of the EJA Trust.


Appellee correctly distributed the assets of the Lakeside Trust. The trial court, therefore, did not err by granting appellee summary disposition. Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Further, the trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration which made a legally defective argument and failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed a palpable error requiring a different disposition of the case.


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. We offer probate services for clients whose loved ones died with or without a will and trust.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

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...

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