Now Accepting New Clients!

WILLS AND TRUST 12: The court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the probate court erred when it found that Appellant did not establish a persistent failure of Appellee to effectively administer the Trust.

Appellant’s father created the Trust in May 2008. The Trust was amended several times, including in May 2012, when it was declared that the Trust would become irrevocable upon decedent’s death. Decedent died in May 2015, and Appellant was the successor trustee.  In an April 2018 e-mail, Appellant indicated that she was “fine” with having Appellee act as successor trustee. As a result, Appellee executed an acceptance of trust, the probate court terminated Appellant as successor trustee, and Appellee was formally appointed trustee. In April 2019, Appellant petitioned the probate court to vacate Appellee’s appointment as successor trustee. Appellant contended that Appellee had violated his fiduciary duties by being unresponsive to Appellant’s various requests, failing to provide an accounting, failing to act as the contact person for the Trust’s accounts, making a distribution from the wrong account, and by failing to file tax returns. Following the evidentiary hearing, the probate court determined that Appellant had failed to prove that Appellee persistently mismanaged the Trust. The court noted that while Appellee had failed to file a tax return, the Trust’s accountant testified that the failure had not harmed the Trust because it likely did not have any taxable income.


Appellant argues, for a variety of reasons, that the probate court erred by appointing Appellee as successor trustee and by declining to remove him as trustee. This Court reviews de novo the interpretation and application of a statutory provision. We review a probate court’s findings of fact for clear error and its dispositional rulings for an abuse of discretion. The court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.  Appellant’s arguments that the probate court applied the wrong statute and legal standards are premised on her position that the court should not have appointed Appellee successor trustee because doing so was inconsistent with the material purposes of the Trust. The probate court ruled that Appellant had not established or even identified the Trust’s material purposes, much less show that appointing Appellee as successor trustee had violated the purposes   Each party has the burden to prove its own cause of action. When a party makes an allegation, the party has the burden to establish that allegation. When deciding Appellant’s petition to remove Appellee as trustee, the probate court stated that “it does not appear, and has not been argued[,] . . . that the material purpose of the trust had been violated nor was it argued that there was a termination or modification of the trust.” Appellant petitioned to vacate Appellee’s appointment as trustee on the basis that the appointment violated the material purposes of the Trust.  Appellant did not provide any evidence or arguments at the evidentiary hearing regarding the material purposes of the Trust. Appellant’s evidence and arguments at the hearing instead related solely to Appellee’s management of the Trust. We conclude that the probate court did not err when it ruled that Appellant had not established the basis of her claims.

Appellant also contends that the probate court should have removed Appellee as trustee because he violated his fiduciary duties by failing to file taxes, failing to respond to Appellant, and undertaking other actions contrary to his duties as trustee. Appellant’s arguments are without merit. At the evidentiary hearing, Appellant only proved that Appellee had failed to file taxes for the Trust. Because the Trust’s accountant testified that the Trust likely did not owe taxes in light of its significant expenses, the probate court’s rulings that the tax-filing failure had not harmed the Trust and that Appellant had not proven persistent failures were not clearly erroneous. Among other reasons, a probate court may remove a trustee when, “[b]ecause of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the purposes of the trust.” MCL 700.7706(2)(c). In this case, the probate court found that Appellant had not provided evidence that Appellee violated the duties of a trustee and that she had failed to present evidence that the Trust had been harmed or that Appellee failed to administer the Trust effectively. The probate court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The Trust’s accountant testified that he had not received tax documents from Appellee for 2018, but it was fairly common for a trustee not to provide documents in a timely fashion.   We are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the probate court erred when it found that Appellant had not established a persistent failure of Appellee to effectively administer the Trust.


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

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

Choosing the right executor for an estate

Originally posted on 05/28/2017 When people are thinking about planning their estate, they often think about trying to minimize the estate tax, keeping their will updated, and keeping items out of probate court; however, there is another...

Understanding how the Miranda warning works

Originally posted on 11/25/2016 Michigan residents who have seen television police shows or movies involving law enforcement have no doubt watched many dramatic scenes with officers quoting something to the effect of, "You have the...

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

A basic introduction to wills

Originally posted on 10/31/2016 It can be difficult to consider the end of our lives when we are in good health. However, lives can change at any moment, so it is wise to be prepared for any situation that may arise. Despite the many...

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

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