in Re Vandecar Estate
330786
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Decedent’s will named Barbara Schnatter (appellee) as personal representative and devised the house to Marcia Lynne Brown (appellant), with remainder to the decedent’s nieces (appellee’s daughters) if Brown predeceased or refused the house.
- Schnatter attempted to effectuate the transfer using a title insurer and a transfer agreement drafted by her attorney; Brown objected to the agreement and the insurer’s involvement.
- Multiple pleadings followed: motions to authorize transfer, motion for contempt and attorney fees, Brown’s petition to remove Schnatter as personal representative, and Schnatter’s petition to sell the house and recover attorney fees from estate proceeds.
- The probate court denied Brown’s removal petition, authorized sale of the house, and awarded Schnatter reasonable attorney fees and costs above a $3,000 expected administration threshold.
- On appeal Brown challenged (1) the fee award for lack of required notice under MCR 5.313, (2) the failure to bring a civil action under MCR 5.101(C)(1), (3) selling authority without using form SCAO PC 681 under MCR 5.207, and (4) Schnatter’s removal for an alleged conflict of interest under MCL 700.3713(2).
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Schnatter's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded under MCR 5.313 | Schnatter did not file/serve the required written fee‑agreement notice (SCAO PC 576), so fees are improper | Schnatter did file and serve the notice; fees are recoverable as reasonable estate expenses | Court found Schnatter complied with MCR 5.313(D) and did not clearly err in awarding fees |
| Whether appellee needed to bring a civil action under MCR 5.101(C)(1) to recover attorney fees | Fees claimed were really a “damages” claim requiring a civil action (complaint) | Filings were probate proceedings about transfer; fees collectible under EPIC for defending/prosecuting proceedings in good faith | No plain error; proceedings—not a civil action—were proper and fees authorized under MCL 700.3720 |
| Whether court erred by authorizing sale without SCAO PC 681 per MCR 5.207 | Probate court should have required PC 681 when authorizing sale | MCR 5.207 governs petitions to approve negotiated sales; PC 681 not required until sale terms/buyer are known | Court held MCR 5.207 applies to negotiated sales and PC 681 is for court approval once terms/buyer exist; no error |
| Whether Schnatter should be removed for conflict under MCL 700.3713(2) | Schnatter’s relationship to nieces (buyers/remaindermen) created a presumption of conflict warranting removal | No evidence Schnatter entered into any transaction with her daughters; actions sought to effectuate the will and transfer to Brown | Court found no substantiated conflict or abuse of discretion in refusing removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stallworth v. Stallworth, 275 Mich. App. 282 (attorney‑fee award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ypsilanti Charter Twp. v. Kircher, 281 Mich. App. 251 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Kern v. Blethen‑Coluni, 240 Mich. App. 333 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved arguments)
- In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust, 300 Mich. App. 339 (distinguishing proceedings from civil actions under MCR 5.101)
- In re Kramek Estate, 268 Mich. App. 565 (removal of fiduciary reviewed for abuse of discretion)