The probate court’s authority to issue a preliminary injunction on its own initiative & without notice to the parties; MCL 700.1309; MCR 5.204(A); Application of the preliminary injunction factors; Slis v State; Harmless error; Due process; Notice; Opportunity to be heard

The court held that the probate court had the authority to issue the preliminary injunction prohibiting appellant-trustee and respondent from making any changes in the ownership of certain property. Further, while the probate court did not consider the preliminary injunction factors, any error was harmless given that it was undisputed appellant had no interest in the property. His due process claim also failed given his lack of a property interest, and he had constitutionally sufficient notice. Appellees-trust beneficiaries “petitioned the probate court to remove appellant as trustee and surcharge him for alleged breaches of his fiduciary duties.” The probate court sua sponte issued the preliminary injunction at a hearing on his summary disposition motion. The court noted that when “MCL 700.1309 and MCR 5.204(A) are read together, these provisions provide, under certain circumstances, a probate court may enter an injunction on its own initiative and without notice to the parties.” Appellant contended that it “abused this authority by failing to apply the four factors courts must consider before entering a preliminary injunction.” But the court concluded that although the probate court did not do so on the record, he could not show reversible error as he did not have any interest in the property at the time the injunction was issued. Thus, it “had no effect on him, and any error was harmless.” His due process claim failed for the same reason. Because he had no interest in the property, “the probate court’s order did not deprive him of anything.” In addition, the notice he received was “reasonably calculated to apprise him of this action and afford him an opportunity to present objections. Appellees served each of their filings on appellant, and so appellant was aware of the claims against him. Most importantly, he was aware that one of the claims was that he mishandled the” property. While he was not notified “in advance of the preliminary injunction, appellant offers nothing to suggest due process entitled him to specific notice of a temporary remedy the probate court may impose.” Further, he had the opportunity to be heard as to the preliminary injunction. Although he did not take advantage of it, he could have objected to the entry of the injunction at the hearing or moved for reconsideration. Affirmed.