Dispute over the distribution of trust assets; Sanctions; Frivolous allegations; MCL 600.2591; MCR 1.109(E)(6) & (7); MCR 2.625(A)(2); Meisner Law Group PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass’n; Discovery & procedural abuses; MCR 2.302(G)(3); MCR 5.131(B)(3); Attorney fees; Smith v Khouri; Calculation of attorney fees; MRPC 1.5(a); Wood v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch

The court in these consolidated appeals held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by finding the allegations in appellants’ counterpetition were frivolous, that it did not err by finding their discovery requests and motion to disqualify were filed for an improper purpose, and that it properly calculated attorney fees it awarded to appellees. The parties, who are siblings (other than appellant-attorney Broxup and a successor trustee), engaged in mediation to determine the disposition of the assets held by their parents’ trusts. They eventually entered into a settlement agreement. Appellees-Fath, Potts, and Edmund Talanda later filed a petition seeking to enforce the settlement agreement relative to a cottage and a lake lot. Appellants-Goetting and Kraft, through Broxup, filed a counterpetition, seeking to set aside the sale of the lake lot and disputing the contention that Fath and Edmund provided proper notice to take possession of the cottage. The probate court found in favor of appellees. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the decision concerning the lake lot. The probate court awarded appellees $51,960 in attorney fees and costs, and also awarded Fath, in her capacity as former cotrustee, $13,377.50 in attorney fees and costs. The awards were entered against appellants jointly and severally. On appeal, the court rejected appellants’ argument that the probate court abused its discretion by finding that claims presented in their counterpetition were frivolous and were, in part, solely meant to harass Fath. “[T]he probate court was familiar with the history of the case and the parties’ positions and disputes. [It] carefully considered the allegations and determined that it was unreasonable for appellants to believe that the allegations were factually supported.” The court also rejected appellants’ claim that the probate court abused its discretion by finding they engaged in discovery and procedural abuses. “Considering the limited issues before the probate court,” it did not err by finding “several of the discovery requests were improper and warranted the imposition of” sanctions, or by finding the motion to disqualify Fath’s attorney “was not filed for a proper purpose.” Finally, the court rejected appellants’ contention that the probate court abused its discretion in determining the amount of sanctions, finding it “complied with Smith, Wood, and MRPC 1.5(a), and did not err in calculating the amount of attorney fees.” Affirmed.