Estate surcharge; Scope of remand; Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v Fieger & Fieger, PC; Reopening proofs; Bonner v Ames; Tax penalties; Tax interest; Prejudgment interest; MCL 600.6013(8); “Money judgment”; Moore v Carney; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that the probate court did not exceed the scope of remand by considering additional evidence on tax-related damages and did not err by awarding statutory prejudgment interest. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the finding that defendant-Tracy breached her fiduciary duties while managing the estate and related LLCs, but vacated the inclusion of tax penalties and interest because the estate’s future tax liability was then “uncertain and speculative.” On remand, plaintiff-PR showed that federal and state tax penalties and interest had since been assessed, and the probate court entered a new judgment including those amounts and prejudgment interest. The court first held that the probate court stayed within the remand because the prior opinion “vacated” rather than reversed the tax-damages award, and vacating returned the issue “to a blank slate.” The court emphasized that the prior ruling did not mean tax penalties and interest were unrecoverable, only that the original evidence was insufficient because the amounts had not yet been assessed. Given the “unique factual and procedural posture” and the time needed for formal tax determinations, the probate court had discretion to receive additional evidence. The court also held that prejudgment interest was proper because the judgment replenished an insolvent estate for creditors, and the case bore the hallmarks of a “typical civil action” resulting in a “money judgment.” The court rejected Tracy’s argument that interest was improper because she was the residual beneficiary, noting that creditors had filed approximately $4.8 million in claims and were delayed in receiving payment. Affirmed.