Appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A); Standing; “Aggrieved party”; Federated Ins Co v Oakland Cnty Rd Comm’n; Notice of an interest in the trust; MCL 700.7604(1)(b)(iv) & (vii); Applicability of In re Pollack Trust; Motion for leave to amend the complaint; MCR 2.118(A)(2); Forms of action in the probate court; “Proceeding” & a “civil action”; Commencing a proceeding by filing a petition; MCR 5.501(C); MCL 700.7208; Amending a complaint with a cause of action that should have been filed in a petition; Conversion; Trustee’s general duty to administer the trust in accordance with its terms & purposes; MCL 700.7801; Deductions from the trust for health, maintenance, & support payments; Order to sell the tangible personal property & split the proceeds

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that appellant-Kirk Siddell lacked appellate standing and dismissed his appeal. As to appellant-Smith, it rejected her challenges to the adequacy of the trustee’s notice under MCL 700.7604(1)(b). Further, it found that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for leave to amend or err in granting appellee-trustee (Heilman) summary disposition of her conversion claims. The court also upheld the probate court’s post-trial ruling that deductions from a trust “were properly characterized as health, maintenance, and support payments” and order that Heilman “sell the tangible personal property and split the proceeds between” two trusts at issue. The case arose from the administration of individual trusts created by spouses William (Bill) H. Johnson and Ralph A. Siddell. Smith was Bill’s sister. Kirk was Ralph’s son. The court first concluded Kirk did not identify “any ‘concrete or particularized injury’ that he suffered” due to the probate court’s determination that he was time-barred from challenging Ralph’s restated and amended trust (the 2017 Siddell Trust) or show how he would benefit from reversal of the probate court’s decision. The record showed that he “would not benefit from the invalidation of the 2017 Siddell Trust and reinstatement of the 2012 Siddell Trust.” Smith contended, among other things, that the probate court erred in “denying her petition for declaratory relief and to set aside the 2017 Siddell Trust on the basis that the trustee’s notification met the requirements of MCL 700.7604.” However, the court held that the trustee’s notice was not insufficient on the basis it lacked portions of the 2012 trust or because it failed to “plainly advise her that challenges to the validity of the 2017 Siddell Trust would be time-barred if not raised within six months of the date of the notice.” The court noted that nothing in MCL 700.7604 “requires a trustee to inform the recipients of the specific legal consequences of not acting during the time allowed.” As to Smith’s motion for leave to amend, she did not cite any “authority allowing the amendment of a complaint with a cause of action that should have been filed in a petition.” Further, her count for invalidation of the 2017 trust would have been time-barred even if the probate court had granted her motion. Affirmed.