Lameti v. Adell (In re The Marvin Adell Childrens' Funded Tr.)

• Decision Date: 19 May 2022
• Docket Number: 357133
• Parties: In re THE MARVIN ADELL CHILDRENS' FUNDED TRUST. v. MICHAEL ADELL, RHONDA ADELL SATOVSKY, LINDA ADELL FITZERMAN, and CLASSIC AMERICANA, LLC, Petitioners-Appellees. RALPH LAMETI, Trustee, Respondent-Appellant, and KEVIN ADELL, Respondent,
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

In re THE MARVIN ADELL CHILDRENS' FUNDED TRUST. RALPH LAMETI, Trustee, Respondent-Appellant, and KEVIN ADELL, Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL ADELL, RHONDA ADELL SATOVSKY, LINDA ADELL FITZERMAN, and CLASSIC AMERICANA, LLC, Petitioners-Appellees.

No. 357133

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 19, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Oakland Probate Court LC No. 2020-397042-TV

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Cavanagh and Riordan, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, trustee of the Marvin Adell Childrens' Funded Trust (MACFT), appeals as of right the probate court's order denying his motion for summary disposition in part, granting it in part, and ordering that he not make any change in the ownership of certain real property. Appellant challenges only the portion of the probate court's order prohibiting him and respondent, Kevin Adell, from making any changes in ownership to the property. Appellant argues that the probate court abused its discretion because it did not consider the necessary factors before issuing a preliminary injunction. He also argues that the probate court deprived him of due process by failing to notify him it was considering issuing a preliminary injunction. We affirm.

1

I. FACTS

This case arises from appellant's performance as trustee of the MACFT. Appellees are beneficiaries of the MACFT. Until 2015, the MACFT held an interest in a tract of real property in Novi, Michigan (the Novi property). In 2015, the Novi property was foreclosed on and sold to another party, thus depriving the MACFT of a significant asset.

In 2020, appellees petitioned the probate court to remove appellant as trustee and surcharge him for alleged breaches of his fiduciary duties. Soon after, appellant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10). Appellant argued that appellees' claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. He also argued that appellees failed to state a claim because the MACFT had been terminated after the foreclosure in 2015; hence, there was no trustee for the probate court to remove. And, in any case, appellant argued, there was no evidence he breached his duties. The probate court denied in part and granted in part appellant's motion for summary disposition. Additionally, and most germane to this appeal, the probate court temporarily enjoined appellant from making any changes in ownership of the Novi property:

I'm also ordering that there be-Kevin Lameti-I'm sorry, [appellant] and Kevin Adell shall make no changes in the ownership of the Novi Expo Center property, the property at issue here, whatever proper description that is, I guess it's described in the real estate mortgage, it's described in the Discharge of Mortgage, that there be no-that they make no changes whatsoever in the ownership of that property until further order of this court. So, that's my order

The probate court issued this preliminary injunction sua sponte, for there is nothing in the record to suggest either party requested an injunction. This appeal followed.

On appeal, appellant argues the probate court erred on two grounds. First, he argues the probate court abused its discretion by failing to apply correct legal principles when issuing a preliminary injunction. Second, he argues, by failing to notify appellant it was considering issuing a preliminary injunction, the probate court deprived him of due process. We address each argument in turn.^[1]

II. ANALYSIS

We review for an abuse of discretion a court's decision to grant injunctive relief. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v Pontiac, 482 Mich. 1, 8; 753 N.W.2d 595 (2008). A court "abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside [the] range of principled outcomes." Id. "An error of

2

law necessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion." Denton v Dep't of Treasury, 317 Mich.App. 303, 314; 894 N.W.2d 694 (2016). To the extent this appeal requires us to interpret statutes or court rules, this Court reviews de novo the interpretation of both. Anderson v Myers, 268 Mich.App. 713, 714; 709 N.W.2d 171 (2005); Hyslop v Wojjusik, 252 Mich.App. 500, 505; 652 N.W.2d 517 (2002). Finally, we review de novo whether a party has been afforded due process. Elba Twp v Gratiot Co Drain Comm'r, 493 Mich. 265, 277; 831 N.W.2d 204 (2013).

To begin, the probate court had authority to issue the preliminary injunction at issue under MCL 700.1309 and MCR 5.204(A). When MCL 700.1309 and MCR 5.204(A) are read together, these provisions provide, under certain circumstances, a probate court may enter an injunction on its own initiative and without notice to the parties. MCL 700.1309 states:

Upon reliable information received from an interested person, county or state official, or other informed source, including the court's files, the court may enter an order in a proceeding to do...