Rejection of evidence as to the market value of properties; The trial court’s factual findings after a bench trial; Menhennick Family Trust v. Menhennick; Review limited to the trial court record; Kent Cnty. Aeronautics Bd. v. Department of State Police; Validity of a gift; In re Casey Estate; Garrison v. Union Trust Co.; Sanctions; Frivolous suit or defenses; MCL 600.2591(1) & (3); MCR 2.625(A)(2); In re Attorney Fees & Costs; Rieth v. Keeler; Amberg v. City of Dearborn; Principle that appellate review is limited to issues actually decided by the trial court; Allen v. Keating; Appellate expenses; MCR 7.216(C)(1) & (8); Kitchen v. Kitchen

The court held that plaintiff failed to show the trial court clearly erred when it determined that he did not sustain his burden in establishing that decedent-Joan (his stepmother) breached her fiduciary duty in connection with the sale prices of the Colorado properties at issue. Also, the trial court did not err when it determined that plaintiff failed to sustain his burden to show that Joan sold a lot for just $10. Finally, defendant-estate’s request for sanctions failed on the merits. Thus, the court affirmed the order dismissing his claims against defendant, and rejected defendant’s cross-appeal “insofar as the trial court did not rule on defendant’s request for sanctions against plaintiff for the filing of frivolous claims.” Plaintiff, who was a trustee of the Family Trust created by his father and Joan, argued that the trial court clearly erred when it rejected his evidence as to the market value of the Colorado properties. He contended “that the trial court erred when it disregarded his valuation testimony and instead relied on its own calculations to determine the value of the” properties. Plaintiff cited “multiple treatises and articles that were not presented or discussed during trial and asks this Court take judicial notice of these treatises and texts.” However, the court’s “‘review is limited to the record developed by the trial court,’ and a ‘party is not permitted to enlarge the record on appeal by asserting numerous facts that were not presented at the trial court.’” While plaintiff asserted that the resources he now relied on were “commonly known to be accurate in this jurisdiction, he neither indicates that those resources were unavailable for him to present at trial nor otherwise explains why this Court should consider evidence that was not presented below.” The court further noted that “the trial court conducted its own calculations to illustrate the lack of explanation” from plaintiff as to how he reached his valuation. In addition, the trial court noted that, even if he had shown that the Colorado properties were “sold for an unreasonable value, the court’s own calculation regarding their value indicated that Joan would have been entitled to retain the proceeds of those sales under certain exemptions and reimbursements to which she was entitled under Michigan law.”