Wills and Trusts — Fee denial – Sanction

Where an appellant co-trustee was denied counsel fees, that decision should be upheld despite the appellant’s contention that the probate court erred by denying his requested fees as a sanction under MCL 700.7901(2) on the basis that he breached his fiduciary duties.

“Appellant, Richard Soble, co-trustee of the Allen R. Soble Revocable Trust, appeals by right the probate court’s order denying his petition and motion for Trust-related attorney fees and administration expenses, and granting Shelda Soble, co-trustee of the Allen R. Soble Revocable Trust, attorney fees and administration expenses. We affirm.

“Richard contends that the probate court erred by denying his requested fiduciary fees as a sanction under MCL 700.7901(2) on the basis that he breached his fiduciary duties. We disagree.

“In this case, the probate court denied Richard’s motion for fiduciary fees and expenses due to Richard’s ‘numerous and significant breaches of his fiduciary duties.’ Richard contends that the probate court’s February 2021 order did not find any significant breaches of duty other than Richard’s attempt to remove Luckenbach, Shelda’s attorney, for an alleged conflict of interest, and that the probate court thereby failed to comply with MCR 2.517.

“In its February 2021 order, the probate court determined that Richard breached a trust duty under MCL 700.7901(1) by failing to follow the intent of the Trust settlor that the co-trustees work collaboratively. The probate court specifically found that Richard breached a trust duty by unilaterally filing an annual account without the co-trustee’s knowledge and by refusing to communicate with Shelda’s lawyer. A review of the record demonstrates support for the probate court’s finding that Richard breached a trust duty by unilaterally filing the fourth accounting without cooperating with the co-trustee and filing a baseless motion to disqualify Shelda’s attorney. We conclude that the probate court satisfied the requirements of MCR 2.517, specifically finding the facts and stating its conclusions of law on this issue.

“We further conclude that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richard compensation under MCL 700.7901(2) and MCL 700.7904(3).

“Richard also contends that the denial of his fees was not proportionate to the gravity of his breaches of trust and that a lesser sanction was more appropriate. We disagree.

“We conclude that the terms of the Trust did not preclude the authority of the probate court under the MTC to reduce or deny Richard’s compensation for breach of trust.”

In re Allen R. Soble Revocable Trust; MiLW 08-107997, 12 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Gadola, J., Murray, J., Yates, J.; on appeal from Oakland Probate Court; Bruce J. Lazar for appellant; Elizabeth L. Luckenbach for appellee.

Click here to read the full opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.