The court’s jurisdiction; MCR 5.801(A)(1) & (2); Final orders; Whether certain issues could be raised in this appeal; Whether the claim of appeal should be treated as a granted application for leave to appeal; Request for sanctions for a vexatious appeal

Concluding the issues raised by appellant-former trustee (Mark) were not properly before it, the court affirmed the order at issue in this appeal. He appealed as of right a 9/8/21 order allowing the first and final account of the second successor trustee, “allowing the payment of $4,600 in fiduciary fees, and directing the release of the remaining assets of the Trust pursuant to a schedule of distributions.” But what he challenged on appeal was “a variety of other final orders that are outside of the proper scope of this appeal” including a 2/14/20 order removing him “as trustee, ordering a surcharge, and ruling that” the appellee (Valeria) was not entitled to damages based on her breach of fiduciary duty claim. Also involved was a 12/14/20 order determining the surcharge amount and a 1/4/21 “order denying Mark’s motion for sanctions. Mark failed to file a timely claim of appeal from any of these final orders . . . .” Valeria argued the court lacked jurisdiction as to the issues Mark raised on appeal, essentially asserting they were not properly before it because they did not concern the 9/8/21 order but rather related “to earlier final orders from which Mark could have filed a timely appeal, but did not.” The court concluded it had jurisdiction as to the 9/8/21 order and any issues related to this order. But Mark did not raise any issues concerning that order. The court addressed why each of the issues he raised stemmed “from some other final order from which he failed to file a timely claim of appeal.” It determined that the 2/14/20 order “disposed of all the claims and adjudicated the rights and liabilities of all the parties with respect to the issues in Valeria’s 2015 civil action.” Further, in that opinion and order “the probate court removed Mark as trustee and decided to surcharge him. The surcharge was quantified in the [11/25/20] opinion and [12/14/20] order. Also, both the [2/14/20] order and the [12/14/20] order decided fee requests and were thus final for that additional reason.” The court declined his invitation to “treat his claim of appeal as a granted application for leave to appeal.” It noted that “a delayed application would have been untimely when he filed his claim of appeal[.]” Finally, it denied Valeria’s “‘request for appellate sanctions without prejudice.’”