-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

In re CATHERINE ETHINGTON LIVING 

TRUST.

MICHAEL ETHINGTON, Trustee of the 

CATHERINE ETHINGTON LIVING TRUST,

Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

July 10, 2018

v Nos. 335904; 336370; 337643

Genesee Probate Court

ANN ETHINGTON, LC No. 14-200566-TV

Appellant,

and

DAN ETHINGTON, JIM ETHINGTON, and 

MARY SCOVIAC,

Other Parties.

In re ESTATE OF CATHERINE ETHINGTON.

MICHAEL ETHINGTON, Personal 

Representative of the ESTATE OF CATHERINE 

ETHINGTON,

Appellee,

v Nos. 335905; 337644

Genesee Probate Court

ANN ETHINGTON, LC No. 15-201989-DE

Appellant,

and
-2-

DAN ETHINGTON, JIM ETHINGTON, and 

MARY SCOVIAC,

Other Parties.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FORT HOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals arise out of a probate dispute between siblings over the 

decedent estate and trust of their deceased mother, Catherine Ethington. Appellant Ann 

Ethington, proceeding in propria persona, appeals as of right several different orders entered by 

the probate court over the course of the proceedings below. We affirm.

Appellant has attempted to raise numerous claims of error on appeal. However, given 

that “a person acting in propria persona should be held to the same standards as members of the 

bar,” Totman v Sch Dist of Royal Oak, 135 Mich App 121, 126; 352 NW2d 364 (1984), and that 

this Court will not seek out authority to sustain a party’s position, Hughes v Almena Twp, 284

Mich App 50, 71; 771 NW2d 453 (2009), the facial deficiencies in appellant’s pro se briefs are 

so substantial that we feel obligated to deem all of her claims of error abandoned. Among other 

things, contrary to MCR 7.212(C)(6), none of her briefs include—or come close to including—a 

statement of facts that is “a clear, concise, and chronological narrative,” fairly reciting “[a]ll 

material facts, both favorable and unfavorable, . . . without argument or bias.” Also contrary to 

MCR 7.212(C)(6), with rare exceptions the statements of facts in appellant’s briefs do not 

contain any citations to record evidence, let alone “specific page references” to supporting 

materials. Her brief in Docket Nos. 337643 and 337644 does not comply with MCR 

7.212(C)(2), failing to include a table of contents. And contrary to MCR 7.212(C)(7), the 

argument sections in all of her briefs do not cite adequate supporting legal authority (the majority 

contain no citations), are unsupported by reference to record evidence, do not internally 

reproduce or append the materials required to review the issues raised, and contain no 

explanation of whether the issues were duly preserved for appellate review. 

In other words, appellant repeatedly “announces” that error occurred, but she does not set 

forth the particulars, neglecting the “what,” the “why,” and the “where[,]” which “is insufficient 

to present these questions for consideration in this forum.” Mitcham v City of Detroit, 355 Mich 

182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). As explained in Mitcham, 

[i]t is not enough for an appellant . . . to announce a position or assert an error and 

then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for h[er] claims, 

or unravel and elaborate . . . h[er] arguments, and then search for authority either 

to sustain or reject h[er] position. The appellant . . . must first adequately prime 

the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow. [Id.]
-3-

We conclude that appellant has abandoned all of her claims of error in these appeals, presenting

nothing sufficiently substantive to prime the proverbial pump of appellate review.

Affirmed.

/s/ David H. Sawyer

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood