5a
A series of probate and legal documents outline the administration and eventual disputes surrounding the Estate and Trust of Helen Mills Peters, and later the estate of Leo Peters. In 1981, Judge A. Dale Stoppels notifies Sandra Peters Spee and Leo Peters that their petition to remove the court’s jurisdiction over Helen’s trust cannot be granted because the grandchildren—including minors—are contingent beneficiaries. Attorney Dirk Hoffius is appointed as Guardian Ad Litem to represent those interests. The court reminds them that annual accounts must be formally scheduled for hearing.
In 1982, a Settlement Agreement under Section 191 of the Michigan Revised Probate Code is drafted, signed by Leo and the five daughters. It terminates Helen’s trust and distributes its assets outright to Martha, Linda, Diana, Barbara, and Sandra. Accounting documents show the trust’s remaining assets: a $50,000 promissory note from Leo, the Plymouth Road home, the Holland cottage property, and accrued interest. Leo and Sandra file final accounts and request closure of the trust.
Documents also include Leo Peters’s own will, executed in 1993. It leaves personal effects to his wife Nancy (or to son Mark if Nancy does not survive him) and leaves the entire residue of his estate to the trustee of his existing 1993 trust. The will appoints Mark as executor, then Nancy as alternate. It grants the executor broad powers and requests independent, non-supervised administration.
Attorney Dirk Hoffius writes multiple 1995 letters to Diana MacQuarrie. He explains the history of Helen’s trust, the 1960 transfers Leo made into the trust, the conditions on property retention, the promissory note for the furnishings, and the 1977 stipulation in which the daughters endorsed Leo’s integrity and agreed to move trust administration outside probate. He details the 1982 termination, the daughters’ receipt of the house, cottage, and note, and the fact that the daughters later transferred those assets back to their father. He states the unresolved question: what happened to the property after the daughters returned it to Leo? He discusses possible remedies: filing a claim against Leo’s estate, asserting undue influence, or negotiating a Section 191 realignment among heirs.
Additional letters (September 26, 1995) clarify that some daughters had to file gift-tax returns when transferring their shares back to Leo. Hoffius warns that restoring the original distribution now would create major tax liability. He recommends instead making a claim against the estate or seeking a Section 191 settlement that aligns Leo’s estate with his 1977 commitments to treat the daughters fairly, ensure Nancy’s lifetime protection, and make special arrangements for Mark regarding the company.
Probate filings from late 1995 begin the administration of Leo’s estate. Mark Peters petitions for independent probate, lists heirs and devisees (Nancy, the five daughters of Helen, and Mark’s two half-sisters Ani and Teri), and notes one legally incapacitated beneficiary, Brenda Peters, requiring a guardian ad litem. The court admits Leo’s will, appoints Mark as Independent Personal Representative, and publishes notice to creditors. Proof of publication is filed. The estate proceeds under independent administration with no bond required.
