Petition to return bank accounts that were transferred into a trust; Effect of a joint bank account with a deposit; MCL 487.703; Lewis Estate v Rosebrook; Hearsay; Then existing state of mind; MRE 803(3); Petition to return real property that was transferred into the trust; The test for mental capacity; Barret v Swisher; Durable power of attorney (DPOA)

Finding no error in the probate court’s determination that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the realities of the ownership of the accounts (the PNC accounts) between petitioner and her late husband (the decedent), the court affirmed its denial of summary disposition to petitioner. It concluded that she failed to show that the probate court relied on hearsay. Further, the probate court did not err in denying her petition for the return of real property that had been transferred into the Trust at issue, as there was sufficient evidence supporting its finding that she knew what she had signed and its effect. “During the decedent’s life and after the Trust’s creation, funds from two jointly held PNC bank accounts were transferred into the Trust.” Petitioner also met with the decedent’s lawyer “and signed deeds transferring real property into the Trust.” She now disputed those “transfers and filed petitions to have the funds and property returned to her, arguing that she did not understand what she was doing when she transferred the real property and that” respondent-trustee improperly transferred the accounts. The court noted that determining “the realities of ownership is an intensive factual inquiry that will depend on the facts of each case. Petitioner’s affidavit showed that the decedent handled all of their marital finances and gave” her money when she needed it. He took care of her, and she “was largely unaware of their assets or financial status; in fact, she claimed to be unaware of the Trust or DPOA altogether. This is much different than” Lewis, where ownership was more equal. The probate court was concerned whether transferring the “account funds to the Trust was in keeping with how the parties had treated those accounts during their lives and whether distributing small amounts of the accounts to petitioner through the Trust was essentially no different. Contrary to petitioner’s position, establishing prima facie evidence from the accounts’ creation and deposit was not the end of the discussion; this evidence could be rebutted,” and her affidavit showed this was a possibility. As to the real property, the probate court “found no basis to void the transfers” based on her evidence. There was no evidence of undue influence, and her “poor memory and testimony supported the finding that petitioner did not meet her burden to show why the transfers should be voided.”