Request for reimbursement of attorney fees incurred in a guardianship proceeding; Laches; Penrose v McCullough; Res judicata; In re Bibi Guardianship; Waiver; The Cadle Co v Kentwood; Failure to state a claim for unjust enrichment; Probate court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim; MCL 700.1302; The court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal; “Aggrieved party” under MCR 7.203; Compulsory joinder; MCR 2.203(A); Effect of a party’s failure to respond to a particular argument; Reliance on MCR 2.116(G)(4); Request for sanctions under MCR 1.109; Personal representative (PR)

The court held, among other things, that plaintiff-former guardian’s claim for reimbursement of attorney fees was not barred by laches or res judicata, that she stated a claim for unjust enrichment, and that both it and the probate court had jurisdiction. Thus, it affirmed the order denying defendant-PR’s summary disposition motion and granting plaintiff’s request for judgment, in part, under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Defendant first argued that plaintiff’s claim was barred by laches because she sought a final accounting of the trust assets without making a request for attorney fees. The court noted the “mere passage of a short amount of time is insufficient to establish laches.” Defendant also had to “show a change in circumstances that would render it inequitable to allow plaintiff to assert her right to the fees and must show more than de minimis prejudice.” The court found that she did not establish either required element. She failed to provide “any argument as to why it would be inequitable to allow plaintiff to seek her attorney fees in a separate action against the decedent estate.” Defendant had the burden to show “it would be inequitable to grant” plaintiff relief. Likewise, she did not offer any “argument as to how she was prejudiced by plaintiff’s alleged inaction.” As to res judicata, the court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff was “no different from any other creditor seeking reimbursement from an estate.” It noted the attorney fees issue “was not addressed in the order allowing the final account, meaning it was not a final decision on the issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for attorney fees. That order indicates that any remaining assets shall be released to the decedent estate. As such, those assets are subject to creditor claims under MCL 700.3801[.] . . . Plaintiff made a timely claim against the decedent estate under that statute.” Thus, the court could not “hold that the trial court erred when it held that plaintiff was not barred by res judicata from bringing her claim.” It found that defendant’s assertion that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s unjust enrichment equitable claim was both abandoned and lacked merit, concluding there were “multiple statutory sections under which the probate court properly exercised jurisdiction.” It also rejected plaintiff’s challenge to its jurisdiction, finding defendant was “an aggrieved party under MCR 7.203[.]”