6b
Initial Estate Notices and Legal Framework
The documents begin in 1995–1996 with formal communications from Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey. These notices inform heirs-at-law that although they would have inherited under intestacy, Leo Peters left a will, meaning none of the Peter I daughters were beneficiaries. Mark Peters is appointed Independent Personal Representative. Attorney Robert Brower issues a Notice of Disallowance of Claim, barring any possible objections unless a timely civil action is filed. The estate’s inventory shows relatively modest assets: old vehicles, a bank account, McDonald’s stock, and an extensive list of patents and trademarks. No real estate is listed. The estate appears tightly controlled and procedurally complete.
The Interested Party Begins Legal Efforts Years Later
Many years after probate closed, the Interested Party begins attempting to challenge the historical distribution of property connected to both Helen Peters and Leo Peters. He sends faxes and filings requesting continuances, telephonic appearances, and extra time to prepare. The Interested Party files a summons attempting to bring Mark Peters and Nancy Wallace Peters into court for matters related to inheritance, distribution, and alleged wrongdoing rooted decades in the past.
Probate Court Rejects the Filings
Probate Register John D. Flynn rejects the Interested Party’s initial summons and complaint for failing to meet Michigan Court Rules. The Probate Court also notes that no estate for Helen Peters was ever opened and that Mark and Nancy were never appointed fiduciaries. The Probate Court states it lacks jurisdiction and advises the Interested Party that if he wishes to continue, he must file in Kent County Circuit Court, not probate court. The court recommends obtaining legal counsel.
Circuit Court Case No. 01-01807-CZ
The Interested Party proceeds in the 17th Circuit Court, before Judge H. David Soet. Mark and Nancy Peters, represented by Brower, immediately file a motion for summary disposition. They argue improper service, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, expired statute of limitations, and failure to state a legally recognizable claim. Their central argument: this case belongs in probate (if anywhere), and probate timeliness rules expired decades ago. They also assert the Interested Party is not a real party in interest.
Defendants’ Legal Position
The defendants argue that Michigan law grants exclusive authority over estate matters to the Probate Court, not Circuit Court. They emphasize that all heirs had notice in the 1990s and none filed claims within the four-month statutory window. They stress that the Interested Party’s complaint centers on family history and grievances but never articulates a legally recognizable cause of action.
The Interested Party’s Narrative Response
The Interested Party submits a lengthy emotional demurrer describing decades of perceived injustice. He describes an imbalance between the Peter I and Peter II families shaped by Leo Peters’ coercive personality and “unfair bargaining power.” He recounts cottage stories, childhood experiences, and disciplinary incidents that created a climate of fear and inequality. He states the daughters surrendered property relying on Leo’s promise that he would “remember them in the end”.
Intergenerational Impact and Continuing Tension
The Interested Party argues the imbalance continued into the next generation, affecting dignity, relationships, and social standing. He asserts that fraud, coercion, and undue influence should toll limitation periods.
Core Conflict: Emotional Truth vs. Legal Structure
This summary highlights the central conflict: the Interested Party presents a moral grievance rooted in history, while the defendants rely on rigid statutory defenses that disfavor reopening long-settled estates.
