in Re Louis G Basso Jr Revocable Living Trust
337321
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 20, 2018Background
- Louis G. Basso, Jr. created a revocable living trust (restated Nov. 2014); he died Dec. 2014 and the trust became irrevocable. Ronald M. Barron was the initial trustee; Mary Angela Basso and three siblings are beneficiaries.
- Barron served a 30-day notice of his intent to resign due to administration difficulties; all named successor trustees in the trust declined appointment.
- Barron petitioned the probate court for limited supervision to allow his resignation, approval of his final accounting, and appointment of a successor trustee under MCL 700.7704(3); Basso (pro se) objected, her siblings concurred with Barron.
- The probate court entered a scheduling order; Basso refused to sign it and failed to comply with most discovery and prehearing deadlines; the court sanctioned her by dismissing her objections to the petition.
- At the contested hearing Barron testified that the accounting accurately reflected trust income, expenses, and disbursements; Basso offered no specific evidence or detailed objections; the court approved the accounting and appointed Thomas Fraser as successor trustee under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Basso) | Defendant's Argument (Barron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforcement of scheduling order and sanctions | Court abused discretion by entering, enforcing scheduling order and sanctioning her for not signing or meeting deadlines | Scheduling order was proper under MCR 2.401; Basso failed to participate in discovery or seek relief from the order | No abuse of discretion; sanctions were appropriate because Basso disregarded the scheduling order |
| Approval of trustee's final accounting | Accounting contained improper charges; Basso objected generally | Accounting was accurate and supported by testimony and provided documentation; objections were not specific or supported | Court did not clearly err in approving the accounting; Barron’s testimony went largely uncontroverted |
| Trustee resignation under trust terms | Trust limits successors to specified persons; court cannot appoint outside those named principals of Barron’s firm | Barron followed the trust’s 30-day resignation mechanism; all named successors declined; MCL 700.7704(3) permits court appointment when trust provisions cannot be followed | Court permissibly allowed resignation and appointed a successor under MCL 700.7704(3) |
| Appointment of successor trustee | Successor must be a principal of Barron’s firm per trust language | No principal would serve; statute authorizes court appointment when trust’s mechanism fails | Appointment of public/successor trustee was proper under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Grove, 455 Mich. 439 (1997) (scheduling-order decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (2006) (trial courts possess inherent authority to sanction, including dismissal)
- In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich. App. 122 (2008) (fact findings reviewed for clear error; dispositional rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Bynum v. ESAB Group, Inc., 467 Mich. 280 (2002) (definition of clear error standard)
- In re Egbert R. Smith Trust, 480 Mich. 19 (2007) (trust interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia, 312 Mich. App. 684 (2015) (plain, unambiguous trust terms must be enforced as written)