in Re Doreen Seklar
330829
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Doreen Seklar, found incapacitated due to vascular dementia, had new estate documents (trust, will, durable power of attorney, patient advocate form) executed March 14, 2014 that placed Jeffrey Hartman in multiple fiduciary/beneficiary roles.
- Conservator John Yun was later appointed; Yun alleged Hartman unduly influenced Doreen, fraudulently opened accounts in her name, and misused/withdrew funds (claims totaling about $190,369.89).
- Yun filed a probate petition to set aside the March 14, 2014 documents and to surcharge Hartman for the alleged losses; service was by ordinary first-class mail.
- Hartman did not appear at the hearing; the probate court set aside the documents, surcharged Hartman $190,369.89, and later entered judgment.
- Hartman appealed, arguing the surcharge required a civil action under MCR 5.101(C) (thus requiring complaint and summons service under MCR 2.105) and that the probate court therefore lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yun) | Defendant's Argument (Hartman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court had jurisdiction to set aside documents and surcharge a fiduciary | Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary account settlements; Hartman was a fiduciary | Jurisdiction lacking because service and civil-action requirements were not met | Court: probate court had jurisdiction under EPIC to set aside documents and surcharge fiduciaries |
| Whether a surcharge by a successor fiduciary against a prior fiduciary is a "civil action" under MCR 5.101(C) | Surcharge is a probate proceeding (traditional practice); petition filed, so proceeding form proper | Surcharge is an action by a fiduciary against another and therefore must be a civil action requiring complaint and summons service | Court: surcharge need not be a civil action; it may proceed as a petition/proceeding and be served by ordinary mail under MCR 5.105(A) |
| Whether service by ordinary first-class mail satisfied due process | Service by first-class mail of petition, hearing notice, order, and judgment provided notice reasonably calculated to apprise Hartman | Hartman: MCR 2.105 required personal or certified/registered mail for a civil action, so service here was inadequate and deprived him of due process | Court: because the matter was a proceeding and EPIC/probate rules permit first-class mail service, due-process notice was satisfied given proof of service |
| Whether Hartman was a fiduciary subject to surcharge | Yun: March 14, 2014 documents made Hartman trustee and attorney-in-fact, satisfying EPIC definitions of fiduciary | Hartman did not meaningfully contest fiduciary status on appeal | Court: Hartman met EPIC definitions (trustee, attorney-in-fact); fiduciary status not successfully challenged |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lager Estate, 286 Mich App 158 (court’s power to hear and determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Staff v Johnson, 242 Mich App 521 (standard for court-rule interpretation)
- People v Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42 (appellate abandonment for perfunctory arguments)
- In re Susser Estate, 254 Mich App 232 (fiduciary relationship created by general power of attorney)
- In re Conant Estate, 130 Mich App 493 (discussing power-of-attorney fiduciary duties)
- Steinway v Bolden, 185 Mich App 234 (referring to petition to surcharge fiduciary)
- In re Goldman Estate, 236 Mich App 517 (petition to surcharge fiduciaries)
- In re Baldwin Trust, 274 Mich App 387 (due-process notice sufficiency and review of surcharge denial)
- In re Keyes Estate, 310 Mich App 266 (due-process notice standard for deprivation of property)
- In re Wayne Co Treasurer Petition, 265 Mich App 285 (definition and limits of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Estate of Klein, 316 Mich App 329 (precedential treatment and persuasive authority considerations)