Subject-matter jurisdiction to hold an individual in civil contempt of court; In re Vansach Estate; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 15; In re Geror; EPIC (MCL 700.1101 et seq.); MCL 700.1302(d); MCL 700.1303(h); In re Moroun; MCL 600.847; Whether “under Michigan law, contempt proceedings may not be instituted on civil debts where those debts may be obtained through execution of an estate”; Former MCL 600.1701(5); MCL 600.1701(e); Due process; Porter v. Porter; In re Contempt of Henry; Effect of accepting appointment as a personal representative (PR); MCL 700.3602; The PR as a fiduciary of the estate; MCL 700.7303(1); An action of the estate as an action of the PR; Shenkman v. Bragman; The PR’s liability; MCL 700.3712; Notice; MCL 600.1968(4); MCR 2.107(B)(1)(b); MCR 3.920(H); Waived issue; Whether the probate court properly held appellant in contempt without conducting an evidentiary hearing; Cassidy v. Cassidy; Contempt fine; MCL 600.1715

The court held that the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the order holding appellant-Stacey Bittner, individually and in her fiduciary capacity, in civil contempt of court. It also saw no merit in her claim “that contempt proceedings may not be instituted on unpaid debts in the court where the debt arose simply because an estate file has been opened elsewhere.” Further, her argument that the probate court “failed to consider the appropriate evidence or make sufficient findings of fact” lacked merit, and the court found no plain error by the probate court. Finally, it “did not impose a penalty that exceeded the statutory maximum set by MCL 600.1715.” There was no dispute that the Macomb County Probate Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to appoint appellees-Adams and his firm (collectively Adams) as special fiduciary or enter the order obligating the Estate to pay $23,000 in special fiduciary fees. The dispute was over whether the probate court had jurisdiction to enforce that order. According to Stacey, it “was divested of jurisdiction when the estate case was opened in Genesee County.” The court disagreed, ruling that the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the order holding her, “individually and in her fiduciary capacity, in civil contempt of court.” First, her argument that the probate court was deprived of jurisdiction by closing the conservatorship file lacked merit. It had subject-matter jurisdiction to hold her in civil contempt through its contempt power. And, although the “order—which reflected the parties’ settlement agreement—would have resolved the case, it did not do so because the Estate failed to comply with that order. It is well-established that a probate court has the authority to enforce its own orders.” The court also rejected her contention that the probate court erred in holding her in contempt without conducting an evidentiary hearing. “Where a contempt action is civil, an individual’s simple violation of a ‘duty to obey the court’ is sufficient for the court to find contempt.” There was no question that she was aware of the “order that the Estate pay Adams $23,000 in special fiduciary fees by” 12/31/18, and thus aware of her obligation, as the Estate’s PR, to comply with the order. There was also no question that she failed to do so.