“Teach me good judgment & knowledge, for I have believed Thy commandments.” — Psalm 119:66
SUMMARY 1 — CLEAN FACTUAL OVERVIEW (with “Interested Party” substituted)
This document set spans 1995–2001 and tracks the administration of Leo Peters’ estate, the historical context of Helen Mills Peters’ trust, and later legal attempts by the Interested Party to reopen or challenge earlier estate-related actions.
1. Initial Probate Notifications (1995)
In November 1995, attorney Robert D. Brower (Miller Johnson Snell & Cummiskey) sends official probate notices to all heirs-at-law of Leo Peters, informing them that:
• The firm is handling Leo’s estate.
• Mark Peters has been appointed Independent Personal Representative.
• Although these heirs would inherit under intestacy, they are not beneficiaries under Leo’s will, so this will be their final notice.
Enclosures include petitions, the will, independent probate notices, and the register’s order.
2. Claims Disallowed Against the Estate (1996)
A claim for an undetermined amount is filed by one or more individuals.
On February 6, 1996, attorney Brower issues a Notice of Disallowance of Claim, stating:
• The claim is denied in full.
• The claimant must file a civil action within 63 days or the claim becomes barred.
Mark Peters signs as fiduciary; Brower signs as attorney.
Certificates of service document delivery to claimants and attorneys (including Dirk Hoffius).
3. Estate Inventory (1996)
On February 2, 1996, Brower sends interested parties a copy of the official estate inventory.
It lists:
• Multiple older Ford vehicles.
• A Michigan National Bank account with $65,018.46.
• 200 shares of McDonald’s stock worth $7,501.
• A large set of patents and trademarks tied to Leo’s butter/meat product business.
• Real estate: listed at $0.
Total estate value shown: $76,099.46 (excluding undetermined patent/trademark valuations).
Patents/trademarks fill many pages: U.S., Benelux, German, Japanese, and Mexican registrations.
4. 2001 — Legal Activity Initiated by the Interested Party
Beginning in 2000–2001, the Interested Party begins contacting courts and attorneys about unresolved issues involving the estates of Helen and Leo Peters.
a. Request for Continuance & Phone Appearance (April 23, 2001)
The Interested Party faxes attorney Brower requesting:
• A continuance for a hearing scheduled May 4, 2001.
• A postponement of 1–2 weeks.
• Permission to appear telephonically.
A declaration under penalty of perjury accompanies the request.
b. Attempt to File Probate Summons for “Estate of Helen Mills Peters”
The Interested Party submits a probate summons naming Mark Peters and Nancy Wallace Peters as respondents.
The summons warns that failure to respond within 30 days could result in default.
This indicates an attempt to reopen or create an estate for Helen Mills Peters decades after it was closed.
5. Court Rejects Summons (November 20, 2000)
Probate Register John D. Flynn returns the Interested Party’s filings because:
• The summons did not meet Michigan Court Rules.
• The complaint did not meet pleading standards.
• There is no open estate for Helen Peters.
• Mark and Nancy Peters were never appointed fiduciaries.
• Therefore the probate court lacks jurisdiction; the matter belongs in Circuit Court.
The court advises the Interested Party to obtain Michigan legal counsel.
6. Circuit Court Case Filed — Interested Party vs. Mark & Nancy Peters
The Interested Party refiles the matter in Kent County 17th Circuit Court, Case No. 01-01807-CZ, naming:
• Defendants: Mark Peters & Nancy Wallace Peters
• Plaintiff: the Interested Party
Venue statements note the Interested Party resides in California while defendants reside in Michigan.
The complaint attempts to challenge actions related to the estates of Helen and Leo Peters.
7. Defense Motions by Mark & Nancy Peters (2001)
Attorneys file:
• A Motion for Summary Disposition.
• A Notice of Hearing (May 4, 2001).
• A detailed Brief in Support.
Their argument:
-
MCR 2.116(C)(4) — Circuit Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; issues belong (if anywhere) in probate.
-
(C)(5) — The Interested Party is not a real party in interest; grandchildren of Helen lack standing.
-
(C)(7) — Statute of limitations bars all claims (Helen’s estate closed in 1981; Leo’s in 1995).
-
(C)(8) — Complaint fails to state a legally recognizable claim.
-
Insufficient service of process — mailed rather than personally served.
Their brief asserts:
• The allegations are emotional, vague, and lack actionable facts.
• If any legal claims existed, Helen’s daughters—not the Interested Party—should have filed them decades earlier.
• No conduct by Mark or Nancy creates a legal cause of action.
8. The Interested Party’s “Demurrer” (Response Brief)
The Interested Party submits a document titled “Plaintiff Demurs to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition.”
The document:
• Describes family power structures, favoritism, and perceived generational imbalance.
• Accuses Leo Peters of coercing Helen’s daughters into giving up their mother’s intended distributions.
• Discusses psychological and emotional harm extending across the family.
• Claims Mark, Nancy, and their branch benefited from Leo’s actions at the daughters’ expense.
• Frames the issue not as a technical probate dispute but as a legacy of unresolved relational injustice requiring judicial correction.
The filing is non-legal in structure, functioning more as a personal narrative than a statutory argument.
SUMMARY 1 — FINAL SNAPSHOT
1995–1996:
Leo’s estate is opened, inventoried, administered, and closed.
Claims are denied.
Assets include bank funds, vehicles, stock, and extensive intellectual property.
2000–2001:
The Interested Party attempts to revive issues connected to Helen’s and Leo’s estates.
Probate court rejects filings due to procedural defects and lack of jurisdiction.
The Interested Party files in Circuit Court instead.
Mark and Nancy move for dismissal on jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive grounds.
The Interested Party responds with a narrative emphasizing coercion by Leo toward Helen’s daughters and intergenerational harm.
