Breach-of-trust claims; One-year limitations period; MCL 700.7905(1)(a) & (2); Adequate disclosure of potential claim; MCL 700.1215; Kilian v TCF Nat’l Bank; Ducharme v Ducharme; Silent fraud/fraudulent concealment; Civil conspiracy

The court held that appellant’s claims arising from appellee-trustee Huntington’s use of Trust funds to purchase a condominium were barred by MCL 700.7905(1)(a)’s one-year limitations period because a 11/22 Trust statement adequately disclosed the potential claims and informed him of the time for commencing a proceeding. Appellant and his brother were remainder beneficiaries of the Trust, while their mother was the income beneficiary. Huntington authorized a $201,185 Trust distribution to purchase from appellant the condominium in which his mother lived. Appellant later alleged that Huntington breached its fiduciary duties by funding the purchase, failing to have the Trust take title, failing to adequately disclose the transaction, and permitting his mother to arrange for the condominium to pass to his brother after her death. He filed his petition on 2/1/24. The court concluded that the 11/22 statement provided sufficient information to trigger MCL 700.7905. It expressly identified a $201,185 distribution to the title agency for the “PURCHASE OF HOUSE,” while appellant, as seller, necessarily knew the purchase price, title agency, and closing date. “At minimum, these circumstances provided appellant with sufficient information to recognize the potential existence of a claim, or at the very least, to prompt further inquiry into whether such a claim existed.” His 12/22 inquiry and his attorney’s subsequent correspondence concerning Trust activity further demonstrated that the statement contained enough information to prompt investigation. The court also rejected appellant’s contention that he did not receive the pages containing the one-year notice. Huntington produced statements containing the disclosure, appellant had received monthly statements since 2021, and his claim that the pertinent pages were missing amounted to “speculation unsupported by the record.” Finally, his silent-fraud/fraudulent-concealment and civil-conspiracy claims were merely restatements of the time-barred fiduciary-duty claims concerning the condominium transaction. Affirmed.