in Re Robert Winfield Cederquist Revocable Trust
330520
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Decedent left substantial bequests to Bonnie Rowan and Randal Lewis; his children (appellees) sued alleging appellants unduly influenced the decedent to secure those bequests.
- Extensive discovery ensued (interrogatories, production requests, subpoenas; thousands of documents) and the probate court ultimately granted summary disposition in favor of appellants.
- Appellants moved for attorney fees and costs under MCL 600.2591(1)/(3)(a), claiming the suits were frivolous and primarily intended to harass and drain the estate; they sought roughly $635,755 (essentially their full fees).
- The probate court denied sanctions, reasoning (1) appellants failed to seek a protective order during discovery and (2) the suits were not frivolous at their initiation.
- Appellants appealed only the denial of attorney fees; this Court consolidated related appeals and reviewed whether the probate court erred as a matter of law or clearly erred as to the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to seek a protective order bars relief under MCL 600.2591 | Appellees: protective-order failure precludes fee award | Appellants: protective order not required by statute | Court: Protective-order failure is not a statutory prerequisite; probate court erred to the extent it held otherwise |
| Whether the suits were frivolous under MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(i) (primary purpose to harass) | Appellants: discovery volume and conduct show primary purpose was harassment | Appellees: post-filing conduct irrelevant to intent at filing; claims had factual basis | Court: Review focuses on intent at filing; discovery can be probative, but here probate court was not clearly erroneous in finding claims were not filed primarily to harass |
| Whether other prongs of frivolousness (no reasonable factual basis or devoid of legal merit) were met | Appellants: claims lacked factual/legal merit | Appellees: had evidence supporting undue-influence theory | Court: Probate court did not require multiple prongs; it correctly considered the statutory alternatives and did not find prongs (ii)/(iii) satisfied |
| Whether any error was harmless given the probate court’s ultimate factual finding | Appellants: erroneous protective-order ruling merits reversal | Appellees: merits determination controls | Court: Error regarding protective-order requirement was harmless because the court’s factual finding that the actions were not frivolous stands and is not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- 1300 LaFayette East Coop, Inc v Savoy, 284 Mich App 522 (appellate review standard for frivolousness/sanctions)
- Holton v Ward, 303 Mich App 718 (standard for clear error and appellate review)
- Kennedy v Robert Lee Auto Sales, 313 Mich App 277 (attorney-fee awards require statute or rule)
- In re Costs and Attorney Fees, 250 Mich App 89 (frivolousness inquiry focuses on facts at time of filing)
- Jerico Const, Inc v Quadrants, Inc, 257 Mich App 22 (reasonable prefiling inquiry unaffected by later-disproved facts)
- Dep’t of Natural Resources v Bayshore Assoc, Inc, 210 Mich App 71 (post-filing conduct may inform awarding fees)
- People v Feeley, 499 Mich 429 (courts must not read nonexistent requirements into unambiguous statutes)
- Providence Hosp v Natl Labor Union Health & Welfare Fund, 162 Mich App 191 (appellate review limited to issues raised and decided below)