Subject-matter jurisdiction over proceedings as to a change of situs of a trust from Michigan to Illinois; MCL 700.7105(1); Whether the trust had its principal place of administration in another state; In re Doll Trust (Unpub); Distinguishing In re Seneker Trust (Unpub); Order for the trustee to turn over a tax form (form 706) to the beneficiaries; Standing to request the form

In Docket No. 355947, the court held that appellant-trustee (Costello) “effectuated a change to Illinois of the principal place of administration of the Trust and that” the probate court lacked authority to invalidate that transfer. In Docket No. 356500, the court held that his assertion “the entire proceedings in the probate court must be declared a nullity at this point in time” had no merit. It noted that if, on remand in Docket No. 355947, the probate “court entertains outstanding petitions, its order to provide Trust information would be valid.” Costello argued that the probate court erred by holding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceedings. Given the language of MCL 700.7205(1), the court concluded that an important question was “whether the Trust did, in fact, have its principal place of administration in another state by virtue of what Costello did before any proceedings were initiated.” He argued that the terms of the Trust “allowed him to transfer the principal place of administration of the trust to Illinois without following the notice requirements set forth in MCL 700.7108.” Appellees contended that he “needed to follow this statute and that the lack of 63 days of notice, as required by MCL 700.7108(4), rendered his attempt to transfer the principal place of administration from Michigan to Illinois ineffective.” Costello relied on MCL 700.7105(1). The court held that the Trust was “unambiguous in stating that the trustee can change the principal place of administration of the Trust by simple ‘notice’ to each beneficiary.” It was not disputed that they received “notice of the change. Rules of trust construction indicate that Costello effectively transferred the principal place of administration of the Trust to Illinois.” The court found In re Doll Trust persuasive. The court there stated that “because the Trust agreement governs the change of situs, the probate court was correct to conclude that [the trustee] was not required to provide the Trust’s beneficiaries notice of her intent to move the Trust’s situs in accordance with the Michigan Trust Code.” The Trust here also governed the change of situs. While it did “not include the ‘sole discretion’ language used in In re Doll Trust, it” did state that the trustee had “the power to perform every act that a reasonable and prudent investor would perform” to administer the trust “without the approval of any court or beneficiary” and had the authority to “Change the situs and principal place of administration of any trust under this Agreement by notice to each current beneficiary.” The court noted that whether "MCL 700.7205(1)(b) should be used for further petitions is a question for further proceedings." Reversed in part and remanded.