Estate of Shirley Bittner v. Suzanne Bittner-Korbus
333137
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Shirley Bittner, elderly and recently widowed, granted daughter Suzanne a durable power of attorney and made Suzanne co-trustee with independent authority over her living trust.
- Shirley later alleged Suzanne misappropriated funds, converted accounts to joint tenancy, and withdrew money without authorization; Shirley revoked Suzanne’s authority and sought an accounting in probate court.
- Suzanne filed a petition in probate court seeking appointment of a conservator for Shirley, alleging Shirley could not manage her affairs; the probate court granted the conservatorship and appointed Stacey as conservator.
- Stacey (on Shirley’s behalf) successfully appealed the conservatorship order in In re Conservatorship of Bittner, reversing the probate court’s conservatorship finding.
- Separately, Shirley sued Suzanne in circuit court for conversion and return of property; Suzanne moved to dismiss (or transfer) arguing the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction, and the circuit court granted summary disposition as premature.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court’s summary dismissal was premature because factual disputes existed about whether the disputed assets were Shirley’s individual accounts or trust property and whether probate had exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court order dismissing the conversion suit is a final appealable order | The dismissal functionally disposed of all claims and is appealable | Dismissal without prejudice is not a final order | Dismissal was functionally final and this Court has jurisdiction |
| Whether probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the conversion/accounting claims | Shirley: disputed assets were in her individual accounts, so probate lacked exclusive jurisdiction | Suzanne: claims require probate to hear/settle fiduciary accounts and thus fall under exclusive probate jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction depends on underlying facts; because facts were disputed, summary dismissal was premature |
| Whether an agent/attorney-in-fact is a ‘fiduciary’ under MCL 700.1302(d) such that probate has exclusive jurisdiction | Shirley: agent status alone does not necessarily invoke probate jurisdiction absent estate/trust connection | Suzanne: agent/POA acts as fiduciary and claims involving such conduct fall under probate jurisdiction | Court: Statute’s fiduciary list could encompass agents, but probate jurisdiction applies only if the matter concerns an estate/trust or protected person; no established conservatorship existed, so jurisdiction was not clearly exclusive |
| Whether summary disposition was proper given disputed factual issues about ownership of accounts | Shirley: factual dispute whether accounts were solely hers precludes summary dismissal | Suzanne: probate proceedings overlap so circuit court should defer | Court: Because ownership and trust-connection were genuinely disputed, summary disposition was premature |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Conservatorship of Bittner, 312 Mich App 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (reversing probate conservatorship where clear and convincing evidence of incapacity was lacking)
- City of Detroit v. State, 262 Mich App 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (dismissal without prejudice cannot be appealed when used to manipulate review)
- AG v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 291 Mich App 64 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (a dismissal without prejudice can be final when it leaves the trial court nothing to decide)
- Bowie v. Arder, 441 Mich 23 (Mich. 1992) (circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction; probate jurisdiction is statutory and limited)
- Jones v. Slick, 242 Mich App 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (summary disposition inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact exist)