Trustee removal; MCL 700.7706(2); In re Pollack Trust; Trustee duties; Administration in good faith; MCL 700.7801; Beneficiary information & annual reporting; MCL 700.7814; Former trustee property; Reasonable steps; MCL 700.7813(1)

The court held that the probate court abused its discretion by removing the trustee because the record did not support any statutory ground for removal under MCL 700.7706(2). The trustor created the Plank Trust in 2002, and after a prior trustee resigned and was later convicted of embezzling trust funds, the trustor’s other daughter served as trustee until she died. After that death, the probate court appointed the new trustee and ordered her to “notify the parties as soon as practicable of the remaining assets owned by the Trust,” while also requiring her to refrain from spending trust funds before providing that notice. Beneficiaries sought her removal after complaining she had not provided a “full accounting and investigation,” and the probate court replaced her, stating she did very little and asking, “What would be the harm, if you’re claiming there’s only $2,000 left in the trust, you know, somebody else to get in there and see what happened . . . .” On appeal, the court held that a probate court “may remove a trustee only in accordance with MCL 700.7706(2),” and removal is not permitted for “any good cause.” It found the probate court failed to “provide a factual basis to support any of the statutory reasons for trustee removal,” and although the lower court’s reasoning most closely resembled § 7706(2)(c), the record did not yet show “unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively.” The court emphasized the trustee served only about three months, the parties and the court acknowledged the complications created by the earlier embezzlement, and the probate court had not actually ordered a formal accounting, distinguishing an “annual report of the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements” from the narrower directive to notify parties of remaining assets. It concluded the trustee “substantially complied” when she emailed a summary showing $2,059.94 remained, and it rejected unsupported allegations of missing “$1.2 million” as a basis for removal. Vacated and remanded.