Dispute over the distribution of an unsigned will; Petition to admit the will under MCL 700.2503; Jurisdiction & standing; Whether appellant was an “interested party”; MCL 700.1105(c); MCR 5.125; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Due process; Duckett v Solky

The court held that the probate did not err by denying appellant’s objection to the distribution and administration of the decedent’s estate. The probate court granted appellees’ petition to admit the decedent’s unsigned will, and the estate was divided three ways among them. Appellant and other purported heirs later objected, and a settlement agreement was reached allowing the will to stand and providing a lump sum to be distributed among the other heirs. The probate court approved the settlement. Appellant’s daughter (other-party-VanPoppelen) objected, but the probate court denied the objection. On appeal, the court first found that the probate court properly denied the objection on the basis of VanPoppelen’s lack of standing to raise it, albeit for the wrong reason. It then rejected appellant’s argument that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel by the deficient performance of attorney-C, the attorney for the represented heirs, and that she was denied due process and the opportunity to object to the admission of the will because she did not have access to the Zoom hearings. It noted that she provided “no authority to support the assertion that she was entitled to appointed counsel or that counsel was appointed to represent her.” In addition, there was no evidence “to support appellant’s contention that she was denied access” to the proceedings, and she “failed to establish that she was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Affirmed.