Probate court order denying appellant’s petition to remove decedent-Stuart’s surviving spouse (appellee) as personal representative 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 election 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

In an order, the court amended its opinion in this case [see e-journal #61454 in the 01/04/2016 edition] to correct a clerical error. “On page 5, first paragraph, the fourth sentence shall read: We conclude that the probate court did not clearly err when it found that the value of the items in the home would be below Tamara's spousal allowances, and it did not abuse its discretion by determining that an appraisal would be an unnecessary expense to the estate under those circumstances.” In all other respects, the opinion remained unchanged.