Dispute over the disbursement of a trust; Settlor’s intent; In re Estate of Herbert Trust; Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia; In re Miller Osborne Perry Trust; Principle that the terms of the trust prevail over any provision of the Michigan Trust Code (MCL 700.7101 et seq.) with certain enumerated exceptions; MCL 700.7105; Effect of revocability; MCL 700.7603(1); MCL 700.7820a

In this dispute over disbursement of a trust, the court held that the probate court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for appellee, or by granting sanctions against him. Appellant and appellee are siblings. He alleged that appellee failed to follow the terms of two trusts (EJA and Lakeside) regarding disbursement. The trial court granted summary disposition for appellee, finding that “if appellee as the trustee had the authority to amend the Lakeside Trust, then she had the ‘inherent authority of the settlor to distribute trust assets contrary to their terms as set forth in [MCL 700.7808].’” It also found she made the distribution appropriately under both trusts. It denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration and awarded appellee attorney fees. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for appellee. “[A]pplication and enforcement of the amendment to the Lakeside Trust would have violated MCL 700.1820a by materially changing the beneficial interests of the beneficiaries of the EJA Trust, the terms of which controlled the final distribution.” Similarly, there was no merit to appellee’s arguments “because she had the obligation to comply with the terms of the EJA Trust which controlled the beneficiary trust and established the beneficial interests of the beneficiaries which could not be materially changed by the Lakeside Trust in the manner of her amendment to it.” Nevertheless, she “correctly distributed the assets of the Lakeside Trust.” Further, the trial court “did not err by denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration which made a legally defective argument and failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed a palpable error requiring a different disposition of the case.” Because there was no merit to his motion for reconsideration, the trial court did not err in awarding appellee costs and attorney fees. Affirmed.