PERTINENT FACTS
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...
PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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...
PERTINENT FACTS
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...
Plaintiff’s father and plaintiff’s stepmother (defendant) married around 1981. In 2002, the two executed an “Agreement of Trust” prepared by their estate planning attorney. The Agreement of Trust created a Trust...
The parties, R, B, and F are siblings whose father, the testator M, devised for the assets of his trust to be distributed among them. R was appointed Personal Representative of the estate and successor trustee of the trust.
Petition for Removal...
Everyone reacts in their own way when a family member passes away. Emotions can run high, and people can react more strongly than they normally would. Some family members may feel cheated by what a will or trust grants them leading them to contest...
More and more people are conducting personal business and their social life through online applications. Email, banking, bill payment, investments, credit cards, social media and photo sharing are all types of digital assets.
Digital Assets...
We live in uncertain times. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruption to normal life and a real danger to many people, especially those who are ill or elderly.
While you take steps to protect yourself, your family, and your community,...
Decedent died on January 9, 2017. An application for informal probate and appointment of personal representative was filed on February 17, 2017. Decedent’s final will, which was executed on March 21, 2011, was admitted to probate. In relevant...
The mother essentially disinherited her family, leaving $1,000 to each of her children, $500 to each of her grandchildren, and a watch to a granddaughter. The remainder of the mother’s estate flowed to the boyfriend.
On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.
According to E’s affidavit, he disbelieved the validity of the May 2016 Will, but apparently, he took no further action regarding the Will or the coins at that time.
Plaintiff argued that defendant’s fiduciary duty was to accede to plaintiff’s precise demands and make decisions about matters involving the estate that were in accordance with the outcomes plaintiff desired. Clearly, this is not the nature of a personal representative’s fiduciary duty.
Without a validly executed will, your estate will pass by the rules of intestate succession at the time of your passing, which may or may not achieve your goals.
Plaintiffs requested a declaration that all amendments to the Trust executed after April 2007 were void because Settlor did not have capacity to execute them, and because Settlor was unduly influenced by her son.
According to the motion, Article III only allowed the identification and distribution of heirlooms, not all personal property. P argued that the John Deere tractor and other valuable items were not heirlooms and should not have been distributed to N.
Respondent, now represented by counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration or relief from the probate court’s order, arguing that the order inappropriately distributed trust assets before other issues in the action were resolved, and arguing further that respondent was prejudiced by his lack of notice and inability to retain counsel before the hearing.
The fact that an irrevocable trust, which includes former assets of an institutionalized spouse, can make payments to a community spouse does not automatically render the assets held by the trust countable for the purpose of an institutionalized spouse’s initial eligibility determination.
The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
In 2016, Petitioners asserted that the mother and daughter M breached their duty of loyalty by giving son M an unequal share of property from the trust and by depleting the trust for purposes other than the mother’s care.
The $27,000 ordered to be paid to respondents from the trusts was not a sanction, but instead was reimbursement to the trustees for expenses incurred in defending the petition. The Trust contains language providing for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by trustees in administering the trust.
The trial court concluded that appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding decedent’s mental capacity to properly execute his 7/14 will.
The age of an adult is not a proper ground for disqualification under EPIC. As adults, the children are fully qualified to serve as guardians and conservators for their father. Adulthood is all that is required under EPIC.
MCL 700.7803 states that a trustee shall act as would a prudent person in dealing with the property of another, including following the standards of the Michigan prudent investor rule. If the trustee has special skills or is named trustee on the basis of representation of special skills or expertise, the trustee is under a duty to use those skills. MCL 700.7810 states that a trustee shall take reasonable steps to take control of and protect the trust property.
The Michigan probate code states that for purposes of a statute of limitations, the proper presentation of a claim is equivalent to commencement of a proceeding on the claim.
The probate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition because the situs of the trust had been transferred to Florida.
Appellants argue that because they provided medical evidence and appellee did not, the trial court was bound to grant their motion. But appellants cited no legal authority that medical testimony on behalf of the non-moving party is necessary.
The trial court found that both the lease and the legal description of farmland attached to the Trust Agreement are defective because the Trust never owned the property, as evidenced by the quitclaim deed and its recording in April 1998.
MCL 700.7704(3) permits the probate court to appoint a successor trustee if one cannot be appointed in accordance with the trust.
The parties agreed that the decedent properly executed the 2005 will with his wife, but the probate court was asked to rule on whether the terms of that will made it irrevocable, which would mean that the decedent could not change his estate plan by way of the 2015 will.
To establish undue influence, it must be shown that the grantor was subjected to threats, misrepresentation, undue flattery, fraud, or physical or moral coercion sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency and impel the grantor to act against his inclination and free will.
In terrorem clauses, also called “no-contest” clauses, generally provide that a beneficiary of a will or trust forfeits any interest under the instrument if the beneficiary challenges or contests any of its provisions.
As set forth in MCL 700.2502(1), there are specific formalities that are generally required to execute a valid will. However, as expressly stated in MCL 700.2502(1), there are several exceptions to these formalities.
Plaintiffs advised the probate court that they intentionally failed to file a witness list and an exhibit list as required by the court’s scheduling order because they objected to and never wanted a trial.
Appellant appealed Probate Court’s order denying his petition seeking enforcement of an option to purchase stock as conferred by the trust.
The probate court’s decision to order the property sold and the proceeds distributed equally among the beneficiaries is consistent with the settlor’s stated intent to distribute the value of the trust assets to the beneficiaries.
MCL 700.7111(1) provides that interested persons may enter into a binding nonjudicial settlement agreement with respect to any matter involving a trust, including the approval of a trustee’s report or accounting.
A noncharitable irrevocable trust may be modified or terminated by the court upon the consent of the trustee and the qualified trust beneficiaries, if the court concludes that the modification or termination of the trust is consistent with the material purposes of the trust or that continuance of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose of the trust.
MCL 700.7602(3)(a) controls a situation of whether a trust can be amended. It provides as follows: The settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust by substantially complying with a method provided in the terms of the trust.
In the application, petitioner stated that the decedent died intestate, and after exercising reasonable diligence, was unaware of any unrevoked testamentary instrument relating to property located in this state.
