Attorney fees; Principle that fees-for-fees claims are not chargeable to an estate; In re Sloan Estate; Reasonableness of fees; MCR 5.313; MRPC 1.5(a); Augustine v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Smith v. Khouri; Failure to develop an argument for appeal; Houghton v. Keller; Right result reached for the wrong reason; Draws v. Levin; Principle that a mere claim cannot stand in the place of evidence and operate as proof; Michigan Aero Club v. Shelley; Principle that “Michigan follows an open, broad discovery policy that permits liberal discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case”; Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co.; Catholic Family Services (CFS)

The court held that the probate court did not err by issuing an order reducing a previous award of appellate attorney fees and awarding additional attorney fees to the appellee-CFS, the personal representative of the estate of the appellant’s father. This was the third appeal filed by appellant. The court previously found that CFS was permitted to collect its attorney fees and costs from appellant’s “nonprobate transfers because her actions caused the estate’s insolvency.” However, it remanded for “reassessment of the attorney fees chargeable to the estate because the probate court erroneously awarded CFS attorney fees associated with its defense of” attorney fees. On remand, CFS filed a civil action against appellant, seeking “a judgment for the amount she owed the estate out of her nonprobate transfers.” The probate court reduced the original attorney fees charged to appellant by $3,332, and granted CFS’s request to charge her $36,614.25 for the second appeal and $6,843.69 for costs and attorney fees incurred in the civil case. It also granted CFS’s motion for summary disposition in the civil case and awarded $11,657 against appellant for attorney fees relating to the first appeal, which reflected the $3,332 reduction. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying her summary disposition, noting that although “CFS’s attorney stated that he did not have an itemized bill for each issue addressed, he presented his work product from the first and second appeals, which the probate court used to determine the relative amounts of time spent on the defense of attorney fees.” Thus, “CFS’s attorney did not concede that he had no evidence supporting” his properly charged fees. The court next rejected her claim that the probate court’s method for assessing reasonable attorney fees was improper. “CFS’s attorney fees incurred in the civil action were not barred by the fees-for-fees doctrine because the fees were not ‘brought in behalf of the attorney seeking the fees,’ which ‘clearly do not benefit the estate because they do not increase or preserve the estate’s assets.’” Finally, the court rejected her claim that the probate court violated MCR 2.302(B) by preventing further discovery on the attorney fee issue, finding that her “discovery requests were based on conjecture and allowing further discovery would have amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.” Affirmed.