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

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.

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...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

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...

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