Action seeking payment of a claim against a trust; Subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 700.7611(a); MCL 700.7609(1)(b); 700.1302 & 1303; Venue; MCL 700.7204(1); The place where a trust may properly be registered; MCL 700.7209; Transfer of a trust’s principal place of administration; MCL 700.7108(4) & (5); MCL 700.7205(1); In re Stanley A Seneker Trust (Unpub)

The court held that the probate court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for improper venue. Plaintiff claimed he and the decedent entered into a contract prior to her death, stipulating he would receive a percentage of the property at issue. He accused defendants (co-trustees of the decedent’s trust) of breaching this contract or converting the proceeds of the property by not paying him what he was due. The probate court found venue was improper, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. On appeal, the court noted that “[c]ontrary to the approach of the probate court, the inquiry at this juncture is not whether plaintiff is a qualified beneficiary entitled to challenge a transfer of the principal place of administration; the relevant inquiry is whether a transfer of the principal place of administration already occurred such that venue could not lie in a county in Michigan or such that the probate court should have declined jurisdiction because the principal place of administration had validly been transferred to Illinois.” Where there was “no claim that the co-trustees provided the notice required by MCL 700.7108(4), pursuant to” Seneker, it was not shown “that the transfer of the principal place of administration was validly effectuated. Thus, the probate court’s interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions went beyond the plain language to include the probate court’s view of how the statute should operate.” Reversed and remanded.