in Re Gerald L Pollack Trust
309 Mich. App. 125
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent Gerald L. Pollack died June 27, 2009; primary estate assets were his companies (GLP, Investment Services). Gerald was survived by second wife Cheryl and children from a prior marriage (Loren, Leslie, et al.).
- Gerald executed a September 2008 will and trust (drafted by longtime counsel Ronald Barron) and then an October 30, 2008 will and trust (drafted by Charles Nida). Petitioners allege the October instruments reduced the children’s immediate benefits and favored Cheryl and Barron.
- Trustees (Ronald Barron and J.P. Morgan Chase) sent statutorily required trust notice to beneficiaries on May 6, 2010, informing beneficiaries they had six months to challenge the trust.
- Loren and Leslie filed multiple probate actions seeking to set aside or reform the October will/trust and to remove Barron; trial court granted summary disposition to trustees and Cheryl on statute-of-limitations, undue-influence, mistake, standing, and removal claims.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated four appeals and affirmed: (1) trust challenges were time‑barred under the Michigan Trust Code (MCL 700.7604(1)); (2) no presumption of undue influence (insufficient showing that Barron received a benefit beyond that in prior documents); (3) no factual dispute as to mistake; and (4) trustees had standing and removal was not warranted under MCL 700.7706.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 700.7604(1) statute of limitations bars Loren's petition to set aside the October Trust | Loren: MTC limitations cannot apply retroactively because his right to challenge accrued before MTC effective date | Trustees: MTC applies to proceedings commenced on or after its effective date; notice triggering 6‑month period was after MTC effective date | Held: MTC applies; petition was time‑barred (trial court properly granted summary disposition) |
| Whether there is a presumption of undue influence to set aside the October Will based on Barron’s role/benefit | Petitioners: Barron, as drafter/cotrustee with potential control and compensation, benefited and thus a presumption arises | Cheryl/Barron: Appointment and scrivener role alone do not establish substantial personal benefit; October Will conferred no material benefit beyond the earlier September Will | Held: No genuine issue that Barron received a substantial benefit to raise presumption; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether the October Will/Trust should be set aside for mistake (testator’s understanding of trust funding or estate value) | Petitioners: Nida/Barron failed to inform Gerald which trust would be funded; Gerald mistakenly believed estate value justified $10M marital share | Defendants: Record shows Gerald discussed distributions, understood the documents; testimony supports his intent to fund the marital trust first | Held: No factual dispute supporting mistake claim as pled; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether Barron (and JPMC) had standing and whether Barron should be removed as cotrustee under MCL 700.7706 | Petitioners: Trustees lack standing to oppose petitions; removal justified due to hostility, conflicts, and partiality | Trustees: As incumbent fiduciaries and interested persons they have standing; removal requires statutory grounds (serious breach, lack of cooperation, unfitness, substantial change) and proof of detrimental effect on trust administration | Held: Trustees (and Cheryl) had standing; petitioners failed to show statutory grounds or harm to trust administration — removal denied; common-law removal grounds superseded by MTC |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackel v. Macomb Co. Comm’rs, 298 Mich. App. 311 (procedural standard for summary disposition) (cited for standard of review)
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (statutory interpretation and de novo review) (governing review of statutes)
- In re Erickson Estate, 202 Mich. App. 329 (presumption of undue influence elements) (defines three‑part test)
- In re Vollbrecht Estate, 26 Mich. App. 430 (attorney/serving trustee benefit analysis) (appointment as scrivener alone insufficient to show substantial benefit)
- In re Smith Estate, 252 Mich. App. 120 (meaning of "accrued right" under EPIC) (used to analyze whether rights vested before MTC)
- In re Leete Estate, 290 Mich. App. 647 (applying EPIC/MTC to pre‑effective instruments absent accrued right) (supports nonimpairment analysis)
- Kelsey v. Detroit Trust Co., 265 Mich. 358 (common‑law grounds for trustee removal) (discusses historical removal grounds)
- Stephens v. Dixon, 449 Mich. 531 (statutes of limitation are procedural) (cited regarding purpose of limitations)
- Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich. App. 618 (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10)) (procedural framing)
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (summary disposition standard) (benchmark for judgment as a matter of law)
- West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact) (defines the test for summary disposition)