-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

RICHARD D. SHEAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 24, 2015

v No. 318996
Ottawa Circuit Court JERRY F. SHEAR, LC No. 13-003436-CZ

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: S ERVITTO , P.J., and S TEPHENS and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Plaintiff Richard D. Shear appe als as of right the trial court ’s order granting defendant Jerry F. Shear’s motion to trans fer the case to the probate cou rt. We affirm.

Plaintiff and defendant are brothers; defendant is the trustee of a trust established by their mother. On July 18, 2002, plaintiff and defendant, in his capa city as trustee, executed a promissory note. The promissory note stated that money given t o plaintiff between June 2001 and July 2002 was a loan to plaintiff from the trust, and that repayment was not expected until
the date of the distribution of the funds from the trust. The parties’ mother died on November 5, 2012. When plaintiff inquired a bout his expected inheritance v ia a distribution from the trust, he was informed that he was not to receive any such distribution, presumably because of the outstanding loan. Plaintiff filed the present action in the ci rcuit court alleging that defendant “violated his trustee and fiduciary duties and responsibilities in favor of his own self-interest, by
his theft of Plaintiff-Beneficiar y’s Trust Fund monies.” In hi s prayer for relief, plaintiff sought the formation of a constructive trust, the appointment of a new trustee, and that his son be named beneficiary of the new trust. Defendant moved to have the acti on transferred to the probate court, and the circuit court granted this motion. The only iss ue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly found that the pro bate court had jurisdiction ov er the claims in plaintiff’s complaint.

The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Midwest Energy Cooperative v Mich Public Serv Comm , 268 Mich App 521, 523; 708 NW2d 147 (2005). Generally, “[c]ircuit courts have original jurisdi ction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is giv en in the constitution or by statute to some other court.” MCL 600.605. “The probate court, on the other hand, is a court of limited jurisdiction, deriving all of its power from statutes.” Manning v Amerman , 229 Mich App 608,-2- 611; 582 NW2d 539 (1998). The Estat es and Protected Individual s Code, MCL 700.1101 et

seq ., governs the circumstances in which a probate court has juris diction, and MCL 700.1302 addresses the exclusive jurisd iction of the probate court. Pur suant to this statute, the probate court has “exclusive legal and eq uitable jurisdiction” over “[a ] proceeding that concerns the validity, internal affairs, or settlement of a trust; the admin istration, distribu tion, modification, reformation, or termination of a trust; or the declaration of r ights that involve a trust, trustee, or trust beneficiary.” MCL 700.1302(b).

In the present case, all of the claims in plaintiff’s complain t relate to the administration and distribution of a trust. Sp ecifically, plaintiff’s interes t in this case is based entirely on his role as a beneficiary of his mother’s trust and that defendant converted assets that rightfully
should have been distributed to him via that trust. MCL 700.13 02(b)( vi ) grants the probate court jurisdiction in proceedings that involve the power, privilege, duty or right of a trustee’s actions. The complaint states that it “is brought against Defendant Jerry F. Shear, who as the TrusteeExecutor of [his mother]’s estate, violated his trustee and fid uciary duties and re sponsibilities in favor of his own self-interest, by his theft of Plaintiff-Benef iciary’s Trust Fund monies.” The complaint alleges that plaintiff “was to receive a share of [hi s mother’s] estate via a Trust Fund, as per express declaration of Settlor’s will,” and that defenda nt “completely purloin[ed] the trust res of plaintiff’s trust fund by offsetting the trust against t he worthless note, knowing there had been no consideration given in exchange for the note, and contr ary to the express intent of [his mother]’s Will declaring a testamentary trust for the benefit o f plaintiff-beneficiary.” Moreover, all of the relief requested by plaintiff relates to the adminis tration and distribution of the trust. Although plaintiff attempts on a ppeal to couch his claims in te rms of embezzlement, “this Court will look beyond a plaintiff's choice of labels to the true nat ure of the plaintiff's claim.” Manning , 229 Mich App at 613.

Plaintiff’s argument that the probate court does not have excl usive jurisdiction over this case because the case does not involve a determination of any i ssues with regard to the settlement of the trust is not supported by the plain language of MCL 700.1302(b). In addition, plaintiff’s reliance on People v Couzens , 480 Mich 240; 747 NW2d 849 (2008), is misplaced because there are no criminal charges pending based on the alle gations in the complaint.

Because all of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint relate to t he administration and distribution of his mother’s trust, we find that the probate co urt has exclusive jurisdiction over the action pursuant to MCL 700.1302(b), and the circuit court p roperly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and transferred the case to the probate court.

Affirmed.

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens /s/ Michael J. Kelly