Probate court order denying appellant’s petition to remove decedent-Stuart’s surviving spouse (appellee) as personal representative (PR) of Stuart’s estate; MCL 700.3203; MCL 700.3611; MCL 700.3614; Discretion to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary; Parks v. Parks; Jurisdiction to hear the appeal; MCR 5.801(B)(2)(a) & (l); Review of the probate court’s factual findings; In re Lundy Estate; Beason v. Beason; In re Duane V. Baldwin Trust; Denial of appellant’s request to disallow appellee’s selection of spousal homestead & exempt property allowances; MCL 700.2404 & MCL 700.2402; MCL 700.3101; In re Jajuga Estate; Claim that the probate court erred in declining to order an appraisal of Stuart’s personal property at the expense of the estate

The court held that the probate court’s decision not to remove and replace the surviving spouse (appellee-Tamara) as PR fell within the range of principled outcomes. It also held that the probate court’s decision to allow Tamara to take spousal allowances did not fall outside the range of principled outcomes. Appellant-Brad, the decedent’s adult son from another marriage, contended that the probate court abused its discretion when it denied his petition to remove Tamara. He argued that the probate court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the contested facts. The “probate court determined that it did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing because, even assuming that Brad’s allegations were true, supervised administration of the estate was sufficient to address the family’s concerns.” The court held that the “probate court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing fell within the range of principled outcomes.” Second, Brad contended that “the probate court’s decision not to remove Tamara constituted an abuse of discretion because Tamara is an alcoholic who is not qualified to act as” PR, acted “against the family’s best interests, and misrepresented material facts. Presuming without deciding, as the probate court did, that these allegations are true,” the court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion. It was “clear from the record that the probate court considered the totality of the circumstances.” There was no other immediate family member able to act as PR—“Brad is incarcerated, Brian resides out of the state, and Brooke is stationed in Germany. An appointed special representative would require compensation from the estate, and the estate does not have significant assets.” Even if Tamara was as irresponsible as Brad alleged, “she has the assistance of an attorney to help manage the estate and discharge the duties of her office. Finally, and importantly, the probate court ordered supervised administration of the estate and a trial on the issue of the missing will. These measures were reasonable to address the family’s concerns.” Affirmed.