If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-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 EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST.

EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,

Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

September 8, 2022

v No. 349679

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER, LC No. 2006-307607-TV

Appellant,

and 

WILLIAM J. ROSS III,

Appellee.

In re WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST.

WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,

Appellee,

v No. 349680

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER, LC No. 2006-307608-TV

Appellant,

and 
-2-

WILLIAM J. ROSS III,

Appellee.

In re EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST.

EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee, and 

RICHARD CONNORS,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v Nos. 349917; 351355; 351823

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

and 

WILLIAM J. ROSS III,

LC No. 2006-307607-TV

Appellee.

In re WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST.

WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee, and 

RICHARD CONNORS,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v Nos. 349926; 351356; 351839

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

and 

LC No. 2006-307608-TV
-3-

WILLIAM J. ROSS III,

Appellee.

In re EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST.

EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,

Appellant,

v No. 351981

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER, WILLIAM J. ROSS III, and 

RICHARD CONNORS,

LC No. 2006-307607-TV

Appellees.

In re WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST.

WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,

Appellant,

v No. 351982

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER, WILLIAM J. ROSS III, and 

RICHARD CONNORS,

LC No. 2006-307608-TV

Appellees.

In re EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST.

EDMUND WILLIAM ROSS II IRREVOCABLE

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,
-4-

Appellee,

v No. 354298

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER, LC No. 2006-307607-TV

Appellant,

and

WILLIAM J. ROSS III and RICHARD CONNORS,

Other Parties.

In re WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST.

WILLIAM JAMES ROSS IV IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST, by ANNETTE M. LEROUX, Trustee,

Appellee,

v No. 354303

Oakland Probate Court

CORRINE BREER

Appellant,

and

WILLIAM J. ROSS III and RICHARD CONNORS,

LC No. 2006-307608-TV

Other Parties.

AFTER REMAND

Before: GADOLA, P.J., and JANSEN and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case returns to us after proceedings on remand. As provided in our previous opinion, 

In re Edmund William Ross II Irrevocable Trust, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of 
-5-

Appeals, issued September 16, 2021 (Docket Nos. 349679; 349680; 349917; 349926; 351355; 

351356; 351823; 351839; 351981; 351982; 354298; 354303); slip op at 18-20, we remanded this 

matter for the limited issue “for the trial court to provide the specific findings required under the 

test provided in Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519; 751 NW2d 472 (2008), and Pirgu v United Servs 

Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269, 274; 884 NW2d 257 (2016), to determine reasonable attorney fees.” 

In re Edmund William Ross II Irrevocable Trust, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, 

entered September 16, 2021 (Docket Nos. 349679; 349680; 349917; 349926; 351355; 351356; 

351823; 351839; 351981; 351982; 354298; 354303). Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial 

court’s May 18, 2022 award of $91,107.70 in reasonable attorney fees and costs to Breer, we 

affirm. 

On appeal, Breer raised issue with the probate court basing the hourly rates for her attorneys 

for the rates prevailing in Oakland County, and the trustee argued that the probate court abused its 

discretion by awarding attorney fees for a short motion that was ultimately withdrawn. A trial 

court’s award of attorney fees and costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Pirgu, 499 Mich 

at 274. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of 

reasonable and principled outcomes.” Id. 

The proper analysis under the Smith/Pirgu test begins with the trial court determining the 

fee “customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.” Smith, 481 Mich at 530. The 

trial court may rely on survey data published by the State Bar of Michigan to do so. Id. at 531. 

Then the trial court must multiply that rate by the reasonable number of hours worked to provide 

a baseline figure. Pirgu, 499 Mich at 281. Then the court must consider all of the nonexclusive 

factors provided in Pirgu, along with any other relevant factors, to determine whether any upward 

or downward adjustments are appropriate. Id. at 281-282.

We remanded this matter for the trial court to follow this procedure. The trial court held a 

hearing on May 3, 2022, and provided its detailed findings of fact addressing each factor on the 

record. Relying on the Economics of Law Practice survey from 2017 for Oakland County, the 

trial court determined the amount customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services for 

each of the attorneys at issue, and adjusted it according to certain factors present in this case to 

determine a “market rate.” This included the complex nature of the multistate civil litigation at 

issue, and the experience and qualifications of each attorney. The trial court adjusted the 2017 

rates to reflect 2019 rates. The trial court relied on the probate court’s previous finding of a 

reasonable number of hours, and adjusted them according to the trustee and her attorney’s valid 

objections. The court addressed all of the Smith/Pirgu factors, and made an upward adjustment 

for the Chicago attorneys. The court concluded that Breer’s lawyer should not have to “absorb the 

costs” of the trustee and her attorney’s frivolous motion. Based on its calculations, the trial court 

entered an order awarding Breer $91,107.70 in reasonable attorney fees and costs.

We note that the trustee and her attorney attempted to relitigate the issue of “fees for fees” 

on remand; however, this issue was outside the scope of our remand order. As it relates to the 

issue on remand, the trial court provided the dates for which attorney fees and costs were awarded, 

as it was previously found by the probate court, and noted that there was no evidence that the 

trustee or her attorney ever withdrew the frivolous motion. Nonetheless, as stated in our previous 

opinion, the “fees for fees” Breer sought were on top of the previous amount awarded to her, and 

separate from the reasonable costs and fees that were the limited issue on remand. 
-6-

Finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in making this determination, we affirm 

the May 18, 2022 order awarding Breer costs and fees. 

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien