In Re Conservatorship of Il

── In Re Conservatorship of Il ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Conservatorship of IL. THOMAS BRENNAN FRASER, UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2026 Appellant, 9:10 AM v No. 375802 Oakland Probate Court IL, a legally protected individual, PAUL LC No. 2021-399077-CA LETISSIER, MICHELLE HAIGHT, and RENEE BOOGREN, TERESE SHELLEDY, Appellees. Before: TREBILCOCK, P.J., and CAMERON and LIEVENSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Thomas Brennan Fraser, appeals as of right the probate court’s order removing him as conservator. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After IL’s son, appellee Paul LeTissier, was removed for breaching his fiduciary duties as conservator, the probate court appointed Fraser to replace him.1 When Fraser was appointed, the probate court had appointed an auditor to review LeTissier’s accounts. In light of the audit, the probate court ordered that the bank account used by the conservator be frozen. The probate court later learned that Fraser’s staff had contacted the bank to lift the freeze; he had not sought any relief from the probate court. The probate court realized that there was a genuine concern as to whether IL’s needs were being met and wanted to know why Fraser never 1 LeTissier has also appealed his removal in Docket No. 371470. Relatedly, Terese Shelledy appeals her removal as IL’s guardian in Docket No. 377144. -1- asked the court to lift the freeze so he could access its funds and fulfil his duties as conservator. As a result, it scheduled an emergency hearing to address the frozen account. Fraser did not attend the hearing, nor did he inform the probate court he would not be attending. Instead, he reported to other attorneys involved in the case that he would not be attending, telling one that he was not appearing because of his pending motion for disqualification.2 At the hearing, the probate court removed Fraser as conservator, finding that he was not effectively performing his duties, which required immediate action and appointment of a replacement. Fraser now appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the probate court’s decision to remove Fraser as conservator for an abuse of discretion. In re Conservatorship of Bittner, 312 Mich App 227, 235; 879 NW2d 269 (2015). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Id. “However, the probate court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.” Id. “A finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to support the finding.” Id. at 236 (quotation marks and citation omitted). III. ANALYSIS Fraser argues that the probate court lacked good cause for his removal. We disagree. Under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., a conservator is a fiduciary. MCL 700.1104(e). In their fiduciary capacities, conservators must observe the standard of care applicable to trustees. MCL 700.5416. One of the conservator’s duties is to “expend or distribute money reasonably necessary for the support, education, care, or benefit of the protected individual[.]” MCL 700.5425(b). Under MCL 700.5414, a probate court “may remove a c