Breach of fiduciary duty; Whether a fiduciary relationship existed; Lack of trustee status; A “trust beneficiary” under MCL 700.7103(l); Undue influence; Timeliness; Legal malpractice; Alleged representation; Conversion; MCL 600.5805(2); Civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); Reasonable diligence; Discovery tolling; MCL 600.5855; Applicability of MCL 700.1205(3)

The court held that petitioner was precluded from bringing claims against respondent-Spicer for breach of either of two trusts. Further, her undue influence, conversion, and civil RICO claims were time-barred. And her petition failed to set forth any facts creating a question of material fact as to whether Spicer was her attorney for purposes of her legal malpractice claim. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for respondents. Petitioner was “the descendant of Doris and Donald Duchene, who jointly established the Doris Trust designed to manage the family assets . . . . Upon Doris’s death in 2001, the assets were to be allocated into three distinct subtrusts: The Descendants Trust intended for the benefit of Doris’s grandchildren, the Marital Trust structured to provide for Donald’s support during his lifetime, and the Family Trust designated for equal distribution among Doris’s children. Donald assumed the role of successor trustee for the Doris Trust following Doris’s passing.” Spicer, an attorney, “provided legal assistance to the Duchene family.” The trial court ruled that petitioner’s various claims were “time-barred and substantively lacking merit.” On appeal, the court first found that “any misconduct alleged by the petitioner must have occurred prior to or at the time of Donald’s death in 2015. Consequently, her claim of undue influence was time-barred as of 2021.” She did not bring her claim until 2022. As to her breach of fiduciary duty claims, “the crux of petitioner’s claim regarding the Doris Trust is fundamentally flawed, as Spicer was never a trustee of the Doris Trust. Thus, any claim against Spicer for breach of trust is precluded due to his lack of trustee status.” Further, the Marital Trust did “not constitute a standalone trust from which [petitioner] could claim to be a ‘trust beneficiary’ under MCL 700.7103(l). Her contingent beneficial interest, if any, lies within the Doris Trust or potentially the Family Trust. While petitioner has identified herself as a beneficiary of the Doris Trust, the Donald Trust, and Donald’s estate, she has notably failed to position herself as a beneficiary of the Marital Trust.” As to her conversion claim, it was “intrinsically linked to her assertion that Spicer violated the provisions of the Doris Trust or disrupted the estate distribution plans of Doris. Notably, any act of conversion would have been finalized long before three years prior to the initiation of the current legal action.” Thus, the claim was “barred by MCL 600.5805(2).”