Removal of a trustee by the probate court; MCL 700.7706; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F); Service by mail; MCR 5.108(B)(1). Personal service; MCR 5.108(A); MCR 1.108

The court held that the probate court did not err by removing respondent as trustee of his mother’s trust, terminating the trust, and ordering a full accounting of the disposition of trust assets. Petitioner (respondent’s sibling) filed a petition with the probate court requesting that it determine the validity of their mother’s trust, supervise the administration and distribution of trust assets, and enjoin respondent from distributing trust assets. The probate court ultimately removed respondent as trustee and terminated the trust. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the probate court erred by denying his motion for reconsideration. His principal claim was that the probate court erred by rejecting his arguments as to petitioner’s alleged financial and verbal abuse of their mother. “Respondent did not claim in his motion for reconsideration that he had only recently discovered the alleged abuse; rather, he specifically stated that his knowledge of petitioner’s abuse of [their mother] was the reason why he did not provide information about the trust’s assets to petitioner.” The court found that because this “argument and its accompanying evidence could have been presented in response to petitioner’s original motion,” the probate court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting it. “The same is true for respondent’s assertion, made for the first time in his motion for reconsideration, that the home he purchased with trust assets (which was solely titled in his name) was intended to” also be their mother’s residence. “Respondent was given the opportunity to raise these arguments at the settlement conference or in response to petitioner’s motion to remove respondent as trustee and terminate the trust, but he chose instead to claim that stress and medical issues had prevented him from providing petitioner with any accountings or responding to discovery requests.” In any event, his arguments did “not explain why he could not provide the [probate] court with the accountings and documentation that he had been repeatedly ordered to provide.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that he was not given the full 14-day period between service of a motion and the hearing on the motion. It “was confirmed on the record at the [1/23/24] settlement conference that respondent was personally served with the motion at that time, and the date for the hearing was set on that day for” 1/30/24. “In contrast to MCR 5.108(B)(1) (which applies to service by mail), MCR 5.108(A) states that personal service of a petition or motion must be made at least 7 days before the date set for the hearing. This personal service satisfied that requirement.” Affirmed.