Wrongful death settlement proceeds; MCL 600.2922(6)(d); In re Claim of Carr; Consideration of a party’s failure to attend a ceremony at which the decedent’s ashes were buried; Consideration of evidence that was not part of the record; Credibility assessments; Claim the personal representative (PR) breached fiduciary duties; In re Schwein Estate

Holding that the trial court did not err in distributing the settlement proceeds in this wrongful-death case or in failing to sanction the PR (Webster), the court affirmed. Appellant-Chase (decedent-Desiree’s father) argued that the trial court erred in awarding 100% of the settlement proceeds to Webster (Desiree’s mother). The court concluded that given its “deferential standard of review, the repeated turbulence in the relationship between appellant and Desiree, and the clear, central role Webster played in Desiree’s life as the primary parent, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in awarding 100% of the net settlement proceeds to Webster.” Appellant argued “the trial court erred by stating that Desiree expressed to one of her counselors that she feared appellant.” The court determined that the asserted error “was not decisive and thus does not require reversal.” Appellant also contended “the trial court improperly considered his failure to attend a ceremony at which Desiree’s ashes were buried or his failure to ask where she was buried until his deposition.” The court concluded that any “error in referring to appellant’s failure to attend the burial or to ask for the gravesite location was not decisive to the outcome and does not require reversal.” Appellant next asserted “the trial court erred by considering evidence that was not part of the record.” But the court found that he did not establish “any outcome-determinative error arising from Webster’s submission of her bench brief.” Appellant next argued “the trial court erred in assessing the credibility of Webster and” Desiree’s older sister. The court held that he did not identify any basis on which it “should disturb the trial court’s credibility assessments, nor has he shown that the trial court clearly erred in distributing all of the net settlement proceeds to Webster.” Finally, it found no grounds for concluding “that Webster breached any fiduciary duties in her capacity as” PR.