Conservatorship dispute; Order authorizing the sale of the legally protected person’s home; Ability to appeal; Requirement that appellant be “aggrieved”; MCR 5.801(A); MCR 7.203(A)(2); Federated Ins Co v Oakland Cnty Rd Comm’n; Injury to a party or an interested person; In re Trankla Estate; Effect of an unsecured debt; Irwin v Meese; Effect of the possibility of inheriting an interest in the property

In this conservatorship dispute, the court held that respondent-Randall Apslund was not aggrieved by the probate court order to sell his mother’s (Roberta, a legally protected person) home and thus, it dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It noted that after “the probate court appointed a conservator for Roberta, the conservator held title to all Roberta’s property—real and personal—as her trustee.” Petitioner, the successor conservator, sought authority from the probate court to sell the real property. “The probate court held a hearing and found that the price was appropriate under the circumstances and that the sale was in Roberta’s best interests.” Randall, an interested person under the applicable court rules, appealed the order as of right. The court noted that “there is an important limitation on an interested person’s ability to appeal: he or she must be ‘aggrieved’ by the order.” To be aggrieved, Randall had to show that he sustained some injury arising from the probate court’s action. He did not offer any “evidence that he had an ownership interest or other property rights in Roberta’s home;” he did not even assert any ownership interest in it. He did contend “that the estate owed him money, but an unsecured debt does not give Randall any rights in Roberta’s real property that would entitle him to stop its sale.” In addition, the fact that he might inherit an interest in her real property following her death did “not make him an aggrieved party because that interest is contingent on a future event.” The court noted that his “mere disappointment with the probate court’s decision to authorize the sale did not render him aggrieved by” that order. Under MCR 5.801(A) and 7.203(A), the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his appeal because he was not aggrieved by the challenged order. Dismissed with prejudice.