Competing petitions for probate; Whether there was good cause to grant a motion to extend discovery; MCR 2.503(B)(1) & (C)(2); Ruffin v Kent; Pauley v Hall; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for appellee-PR, or by denying appellant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismissing his petition for probate. The parties filed competing petitions for probate, attached the decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, and sought appointment as PR. Appellant later filed a petition to amend or extend discovery, adjourn mediation, and for the issuance of subpoenas to several of the decedent’s alleged medical providers. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the probate court abused its discretion by denying his motion to extend discovery and granting appellee’s summary disposition motion. Although he tried to explain that “his counsel’s failure to complete discovery was because of Hospice, the record is devoid of any attempts by [his] counsel to secure a signed subpoena from the probate court for [the decedent’s] medical records from Hospice.” As such, he failed to show “an adequate explanation for his counsel’s failure to complete discovery necessitating an extension or adjournment.” In addition, he did not “exercise due diligence by waiting to issue two subpoenas for” the decedent’s medical records just before the discovery deadline, and not trying to engage in any other discovery. Counsel stated he had only apparently received records about the decedent’s “cognitive status,” but they had not been provided to the probate court. And because his counsel “admitted that Hospice had not yet even supplied the records he ‘believed’ were vital to the determination of [the decedent’s] testamentary capacity (much less formed any expert opinions or located any relevant evidence as a result of the medical records), the probate court could also conclude the medical records from Hospice would not be material, or that [appellant] had not shown an adequate reason for the failure to subpoena the records from Hospice during the agreed-upon time for discovery.” Affirmed.