Now Accepting New Clients!



In 2010, the decedents created the Trust and dual durable powers of attorney in which each spouse nominated the other to serve as primary attorney-in-fact with respondent to serve as the first alternate. The Trust designated the decedents to be primary trustees and beneficiaries, with respondent to serve as successor trustee upon the decedents’ incapacitation or death. Respondent, his children, and petitioners were other named beneficiaries. After one of the Settlors died and the other one was declared incapacitated, Respondent accordingly assumed his role as both successor trustee and the holder of the power of attorney. After the Settlor was declared incapacitated, respondent made substantial distributions from the Trust and  estate amounting to approximately $147,000 to pay his children’s educational expenses and $56,000 to himself.   Petitioners brought this action alleging that respondent violated his fiduciary duties and the Trust’s terms by improperly self-dealing and exhausting the Trust’s assets to their detriment as beneficiaries. Respondent defended his actions under the Trust’s and power of attorney’s terms, maintaining that he was given unbridled discretion to distribute the Trust’s assets. The probate court held that respondent was authorized under the power of attorney and the Trust to make distributions to himself and his children, but his authority to do so was limited to gifts “that will qualify for exclusion under the Internal Revenue Code.”


This Court reviews de novo both the probate court’s interpretation of a trust and its interpretation of a contract.


We reject petitioners’ argument that respondent was prohibited from making gifts to himself or his children under the power of attorney or the Trust. First addressing respondent’s authority under the power of attorney, it is well established that a power of attorney provides the agent with all the rights and responsibilities of the principal as outlined in the agreement.  The power of attorney in the present case explicitly empowered respondent to self-deal in the gift-giving provision. This provision must be strictly construed and cannot be expanded or limited. Turning to the Trust, we conclude that the terms of the Trust also gave respondent the authority to make disbursements and limited gifts to himself and his children.


Turning to respondent’s appeal, we agree that the probate court erred by determining that his power to make distributions under Article Four, Section D was limited by his ability to make gifts under Article Four, Section G. However, we do not agree that respondent’s discretion was unfettered—Michigan law places limitations and safeguards on a trustee-beneficiary’s handling of a trust. Michigan law clearly places restrictions upon a trustee exercising his or her judgment under a discretionary trust, especially in circumstances in which the trustee is also a beneficiary.


The probate court correctly concluded that both the power of attorney and the Trust gave respondent power to make limited gifts to himself and to third parties. The probate court erred, however, by determining that respondent’s power to make distributions was limited by the gift-giving provision of the Trust; in addition to authorizing respondent to make gifts, the Trust gave respondent discretion to distribute the Trust’s assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Yet, contrary to respondent’s argument, this discretion was not unlimited, and there remain factual questions about whether the distributions and gifts he made under the terms of the Trust violated Michigan law.


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

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws 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...

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...

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