Petition for probate & appointment of a special personal representative (PR); Denial of request to grant a continuance pending discovery; Dismissal without discovery or an evidentiary hearing; Testamentary capacity

Holding that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s request for discovery or by denying his request for appointment of a special PR in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact whether the decedent possessed testamentary capacity to execute a will, the court affirmed dismissal of the petition. Petitioner and respondents were the decedent’s children. He acknowledged that she executed a will before her death, but asserted she lacked the testamentary capacity to do so and was under undue influence at the time. Respondents contended that petitioner knew the decedent had appointed them as co-PRs “and that all of decedent’s assets had already been distributed to the proper beneficiaries.” They also asserted that he “failed to produce ‘evidence or even a legitimate factual allegation to support that a special’” PR was appropriate. They presented affidavits from the decedent’s attorney and his legal assistant “to support that decedent ‘had the requisite mental capacity to dispose of her assets.’” On appeal, petitioner argued that the probate court abused its discretion by failing to permit discovery, to grant a continuance, and to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition. Because “the undisputed evidence established that decedent had testamentary capacity to execute the will and because there is no indication that discovery would have uncovered material evidence concerning this issue, the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition and did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.” Further, given the facts here, the court could not hold that “the probate court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s request for discovery.” Also, the probate court “did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s request for appointment of a” special PR. He sought appointment of a PR “solely so that the issue of decedent’s testamentary capacity could be investigated. Because a genuine issue of material fact did not exist” as to her testamentary capacity, it was not necessary to appoint a special PR.