Summary
adopting dissenting opinion in In re Baldwin Trust, 733 N.W.2d 419, 429, 274 Mich. App. 387, 405-06 ("While [a personal representative] may not [owe] a fiduciary duty to a creditor, he [or she] may nevertheless owe a duty and be liable to a creditor for a loss to the estate arising from the breach of a duty owed to the estate.")
Summary of this case from Farhat & Story, P.C. v. Erwin (In re Erwin)Opinion
Nos. 133622, 133623.
October 24, 2007.
Reported below: 274 Mich App 387.
Summary Dispositions October 24, 2007:
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals but we reject the reasoning of the Court of Appeals majority to the extent it is inconsistent with the partially dissenting opinion. Under the facts of this case, which the probate judge viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner, even if the respondent owed a duty to the petitioner, the probate judge did not err in granting summary disposition to the respondent in both the estate proceeding and the trust proceeding, because there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the respondent. The petitioner received ample opportunity to set forth a genuine issue of material fact. MCR 2.116(I)(1).