7a
Record
This combined document presents a narrative and legal history surrounding the conflict between the Butter Boy and members of the Peters II family, primarily Mark Peters and Nancy Wallace Peters, concerning the long-standing fallout of inheritance decisions made decades earlier within the Peters family. The document blends factual recounting, personal testimony, emotional context, legal filings, and a detailed description of family dynamics shaped by unequal power relationships.
Rebuttal to Defendants’ Characterization
The Butter Boy begins by rejecting the defendants’ characterization of him as a “poor man seeking easy default judgment.” He explains that the term “poor man” refers not to his finances but to the role his side of the family—Peters I—was cast into during his upbringing in Grand Rapids. The Peters I family (descendants of Leo’s first marriage) and the Peters II family (Leo’s second marriage) occupied different social tiers within the same extended household. This hierarchy was subtly but consistently reinforced during childhood experiences such as summer stays at the family cottage. Peters I children were housed in what was essentially a renovated garage called “the bunkhouse,” while Peters II stayed inside the main cottage. It wasn’t openly stated, but the Butter Boy emphasizes that the arrangement communicated value and belonging without words. These differences shaped his perception of himself and his family from a young age.
Conditional Standing & Disproportionate Scrutiny
The relationship remained “conditional.” Good standing depended on compliance with unspoken expectations. Small childhood incidents—such as a broken coffee mug or a damaged record player—were handled with disproportionate severity toward the Peters I children, reinforcing the message that they were under greater scrutiny. These patterns laid the groundwork for a dynamic of unfair bargaining power that later influenced major decisions, including matters of inheritance.
Leo Peters & Coercive Influence
Central to the conflict is the behavior of Leo Peters, described as a figure whose influence was rooted in emotional coercion rather than physical force. His daughters (Peters I) lived under a combination of love, fear, and relentless expectation. When their mother Helen Mills Peters passed away, her will included provisions for them. But Leo insisted he needed those assets for business purposes and pressured them to sign over their rights. His emotional dominance, combined with implied threats, guilt, and the desire for approval, made resistance nearly impossible. They complied—believing his assurance that he would “remember them all” later. According to the Butter Boy, this was not voluntary consent but a coerced concession under duress.
Long-Term Fallout
The fallout of that decision not only fractured the family but produced long-term psychological and relational harm. After the will conflict of the early 1980s, interactions between the Peters I and Peters II families deteriorated. Although the families continued to live in the same region for several years, the emotional distance grew. Even among the next generation, there was minimal relationship—and where it existed, it was strained. The Butter Boy describes attempts to reconnect with Peters II children, particularly Theresa, but recounts uncomfortable interactions that reinforced his perception of lingering contempt from the Peters II side.
Present Attitudes & Continuing Hierarchy
These experiences culminated in his belief that the “unfair bargaining position” of the past continued to influence present attitudes. The Butter Boy views the condescension, dismissiveness, and mocking behavior he encountered as a continuation of the old hierarchy that began with Leo’s control. This is part of why he ultimately felt compelled to pursue legal action—not solely for financial restitution but to correct what he sees as a deep moral imbalance.
Legal Proceedings
The document then transitions into legal matters. The Butter Boy filed a lawsuit in the Kent County 17th Circuit Court seeking redress related to the historical mishandling of inheritance and the resulting inequities. The defendants responded with a Motion for Summary Disposition, arguing lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations, improper service, failure to state a claim, and lack of standing. The Butter Boy counters these points by asserting that both defendants were indeed personally served and suggests that the defendants risk perjury by denying this. He also argues that psychological coercion delayed awareness and action regarding the underlying injustice, meaning the case should not be barred on technical timing grounds.
Economic & Relational Dominance
He further suggests that the Peters II family’s elevated social position—and Leo’s history of maintaining low wages at the family dairy operation—reflected a pattern of economic and relational dominance that seeped into every aspect of how conflict was handled. The Butter Boy recounts hearing “gossip” from the Peters II side and moments where even mundane anecdotes were weaponized to belittle or marginalize the Peters I family.
Broken Promises
Throughout the narrative, he circles back to the underlying theme: the original promises were broken. The daughters of Helen Mills Peters surrendered their inheritance rights based on Leo’s insistence and his assurances. Those assurances were never honored. Instead, Peters II inherited everything, and Peters I received nothing.
Moral Corrective
The Butter Boy sees his lawsuit as both a legal action and a moral corrective. He frames the situation in broader ethical and relational terms—discussing how people justify wrongdoing, how families create folklore to defend unfair advantages, and how victims of coercive systems often freeze rather than fight. He suggests that injustice persists because aggressors reinterpret the past to preserve their self-image, portraying the disadvantaged as undeserving or flawed.
Formal Closing
The document closes with formal legal declarations, including a Proof of Service and a statement under penalty of perjury (updated per your request to “Interested Party”). This section affirms that the filings were sent to defendants’ attorneys and to the court clerk, consistent with procedural requirements.
Overall Character
Overall, the combined text is both a personal testimony and a legal argument, rooted in decades of unresolved emotional dynamics. It chronicles the evolution of family roles, the legacy of coercion, the abandonment of promises, and the Butter Boy’s attempt to expose and rectify a generational injustice—one that the legal system may not be structurally equipped to address, but which he believes deserves full acknowledgment.
