Reformation of a trust; MCL 700.7415; Effectuating the decedent’s intent; A mistake of law; Casey v Auto Owners Ins Co; Limited-liability company (LLC)

The court held that the probate court did not err in (1) reforming the trust at issue where there was sufficient evidence that doing so would effectuate the decedent’s intent and (2) determining decedent made a mistake of law. At the time of his death, decedent’s trust held real property in Michigan and Indiana, and a membership to an LLC. The court concluded there “was ample evidence to support the probate court’s finding that decedent intended for appellee to inherit the Michigan properties[,]” including the handwritten notes of one of his estate planners taken during her initial meeting with him. In addition, “decedent executed the Trust, which includes a provision leaving the Trust’s membership shares of the LLC to appellee, on the same day he signed the LLC’s Operating Agreement, which provided that the initial capital contribution to the LLC was the Michigan properties. Third, the estate planner who took the notes . . . and appellee, both of whom the probate court found to be credible, testified that decedent consistently stated his intent to leave the Michigan properties to appellee, and never talked about bequeathing it to anyone else. Appellants presented no evidence to impeach the testimony or otherwise refute this evidence.” While they were correct that appellee had the initial burden to present evidence of decedent’s intent, she “did, and it was then appellants’ burden to rebut this evidence, which they did not.” They instead contended “that decedent’s actions were all part of an elaborate ruse to trick appellee—and apparently his own estate planner as well—into believing she would inherit the Michigan properties so that she would continue to provide him with assistance.” The court found that even if it “were to consider this argument to be reasonable, it is not supported by the evidence.” The probate court also found decedent “believed that signing the Operating Agreement, without fully organizing the LLC, was sufficient to give the Michigan properties to appellee. Testimony from both of [his] estate planners indicated that they believed the Michigan properties could and would be transferred to the LLC after decedent’s death. Given the testimonies of the estate planners, the probate court did not clearly err in finding that decedent, working off of the advice of his estate planners, made a mistake of law.” Affirmed.