Order removing the personal representative (PR) of the estate; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) (MCL 700.1101 et seq.); In re Kramek Estate; MCL 700.3611; A PR as a fiduciary; MCL 700.3703(1); MCL 700.3611(2)(a) & (c)(iii)

Holding that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in removing appellant-Curtis as the PR of her father’s estate, the court affirmed the order removing her as PR and appointing a successor PR. Appellee-Haas (who the court referred to by her first name, Nancy), also the decedent’s daughter, petitioned to have Curtis removed as PR. The court concluded that there was evidence to support the probate court’s determination that Curtis had tried “to get Nancy to agree to distributing the estate in a manner other than the method prescribed by the decedent in his will. After Nancy refused, Curtis retained legal counsel and incurred significant expenses for the estate in the form of bills for legal services” and PR fees, despite the fact “the estate involved a simple will and relatively few, easily identifiable assets, creditors, and heirs. As her retained counsel continued to pursue Curtis’s legal issues, Curtis did not question the amount of legal expenses that the estate was incurring.” As the probate court found, this “management of the estate lead to the estate incurring high expenses that were disproportionate to the estate’s limited assets. The evidence further suggested that Curtis’s manner of administering the estate, which was not cost-efficient, would significantly impact Nancy’s distribution under circumstances where the will had provided for Curtis to receive a distribution that was substantially lower than Nancy’s.” The court noted that a PR is a fiduciary, “who is ‘under a duty to settle and distribute the decedent’s estate in accordance with the terms of a probated and effective will and [EPIC], and as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.’” The evidence did not show that Curtis tried “to settle and distribute the estate expeditiously and efficiently.” Under the circumstances, it appeared that she “was mismanaging the estate and that removing her as [PR] was in the estate’s best interests.”