Now Accepting New Clients!



The trust settler, “decedent” executed a “pour-over” will in which the residuary of his estate was to be held, managed, and distributed according to the trust, which was created in March 2006, restated in its entirety in November 2014, and amended in December 2014. The decedent died in December 2014, and was survived by his four adult children, who are the beneficiaries of the trust.  

The trust’s initial trustee filed a petition in November 2016 requesting that the probate court approve his first (and final) accounting of trust assets, as well as permit him to resign as trustee and appoint a successor trustee because dealing with Petitioner was becoming extremely difficult. After a contested hearing, the probate court granted his petition.   All possible successor trustees declined to act.  Acknowledging that “the Court can’t compel someone to serve, and it’s not in the interests of the beneficiaries for someone to be forced to serve against their will,” the probate court found that it could appoint a successor, and it appointed Respondent as successor trustee. The court also found that the accounting was proper. 

In May 2018, Respondent filed a petition with the probate court to allow a first annual accounting reflecting the changes in trust assets between February 15, 2017 and February 15, 2018. Petitioner filed numerous objections to this accounting and, after a contested hearing, the probate court approved it.  On March 7, 2019, Respondent filed a petition to allow a second annual accounting, including the period from February 15, 2018 to February 15, 2019. At the hearing, Respondent testified that by the time the Decedent’s home had been sold, there were no other trust assets to be distributed to beneficiaries. After the contested hearing, the probate court entered an order allowing the second accounting and ordering Petitioner, as a sanction for a frivolous filing, to pay the trust’s attorney fees and costs incurred in relation to the petition. This appeal followed.


 Although Petitioner’s brief on appeal possesses most of the formal requirements of an appellate brief, it consists primarily of a long recitation of her perception of the factual and procedural history of this case. This statement of facts is far from “without argument or bias” as required by our court rules. See MCR 7.212(6). Moreover, the majority of the statements of fact made in this section are not supported by citations to relevant transcripts, pleadings, or other documents filed with the probate court, which is also required by our court rules.  


Petitioner also argues that Respondent violated his duties as trustee by failing to cause the trust to distribute $40,000 to her and purchase a one-bedroom condominium for her, as the terms of the trust dictate. This issue involves the interpretation of a trust instrument, which we review de novo in the same manner as a contract. Our goal in interpreting a trust instrument is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the settlor, which is to be gauged from the trust document itself unless there is an ambiguity.  Regarding the $40,000 distribution, it was clear from the first accounting filed by Respondent that, due primarily to Petitioner’s ceaseless litigation, there simply were insufficient trust assets to pay her that distribution. Regarding Respondent’s failure to cause the trust to purchase Petitioner a one-bedroom condominium, Respondent argues that the language of the trust instrument permitted him to spend “any” amount of the proceeds “in his sole discretion” toward this end, and that, in light of the depletion of a large portion of the trust assets, the possibility of further litigation, and his fiduciary duty towards all beneficiaries, not just Petitioner, he had therefore opted to exercise that discretion not to spend trust assets on a one-bedroom condominium.   We agree.  Under the circumstances of this case, in which one beneficiary has drained the trust of hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, as well as prevented the sale of real property as dictated by the trust for over two years, requiring forcible eviction at yet more trust expense, we cannot say that Respondent abused his discretion or violated his fiduciary duty by choosing to spend none of the proceeds in this manner.


Finally, Petitioner argues that the probate court erred by imposing sanctions upon her for filing frivolous objections to the petition for a second accounting. We review for clear error a probate court’s determination that a filing is frivolous and worthy of sanctions. Whether a pleading is frivolous depends on the facts of the case. In this case, the probate court found that, in filing her objections to Respondent’s petition for a second accounting, Petitioner was “simply trying to drain all of the assets out of the trust.” The court further stated that “this hearing should not have been necessary” in light of the fact that Petitioner was responsible for decreasing the assets of the trust to the point that the distributions she sought could not have been made by Respondent. Therefore, the probate court found both that Petitioner’s primary purpose in filing objections was vexatious and that her objections lacked arguable legal merit.


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