In Re the Marvin Adell Childrens Funded Trust, 357133

Ralph Lameti served as trustee of the Marvin Adell Children’s Funded Trust (MACFT); the trust lost a significant asset when the Novi property was foreclosed and sold in 2015.
In 2020, trust beneficiaries (including Michael, Rhonda, Linda Adell and Classic Americana, LLC) petitioned to remove Lameti as trustee and surcharge him for alleged fiduciary breaches related to the Novi property.
Lameti moved for summary disposition arguing statute of limitations, laches, termination of the trust, and lack of breach; the probate court granted in part and denied in part his motion.
The probate court sua sponte entered a preliminary injunction preventing Lameti and Kevin Adell from making any changes in ownership of the Novi property pending further order.
Lameti appealed only the injunction portion, arguing the court failed to apply the preliminary-injunction factors and violated his due-process rights by issuing the injunction without advance notice.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: the probate court had statutory authority to act sua sponte; Lameti had no ownership interest in the Novi property so the injunction was harmless and did not deprive him of property or due process; he had notice of the underlying claims and opportunity to be heard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lameti)	Defendant's Argument (Beneficiaries)	Held
Whether the probate court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction without applying the four-factor test	Court failed to consider irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of harms, and public interest	Court had authority under probate statutes and rules to enjoin conduct sua sponte; injunction addressed risk to trust assets	Affirmed: court had authority; Lameti had no interest in the property so any error was harmless
Whether issuing the injunction without advance notice violated Lameti’s constitutional due-process rights	Lack of specific advance notice of the injunction deprived Lameti of property interest without due process	Lameti had notice of the claims against him and opportunity to be heard; court may act sua sponte under certain rules	Affirmed: no due-process violation because Lameti had no protected property interest and received constitutionally sufficient notice

Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v. Pontiac, 482 Mich 1 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for injunctive relief)
Slis v. State, 332 Mich App 312 (2019) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
Elba Twp. v. Gratiot Co. Drain Comm’r, 493 Mich 265 (2013) (de novo review for due-process questions)
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (due-process notice standards)
In re Treasurer of Wayne Co. for Foreclosure, 478 Mich 1 (2007) (actual notice not always required for due process)
Lamkin v. Hamburg Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 318 Mich App 546 (2017) (court may act sua sponte but must give opportunity to be heard)
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 273 Mich App 496 (2006) (harmless-error principle)