In Re Howe Estate
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 6, 2025
Case Summary
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 HOWE ESTATE. THOMAS HOWE, UNPUBLISHED June 06, 2025 Appellant, 3:06 PM v No. 369299 Genesee Probate Court KYLE RIEM, Personal Representative, LC No. 21-216835-DE Appellee, and STEVEN HOWE, Other Party. Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. For his seventeenth appeal in the last five years, Appellant Thomas Howe (Thomas) is before this Court with challenges to his mother’s guardianship, death, estate, and family trusts, and the probate court’s handling of those matters.1 The procedural history is replete with examples of 1 In re Beverly M. Howe Revocable Trust (In re Howe I), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 27, 2021 (Docket No. 354458); In re Beverly Howe Family Trust (In re Howe II), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 2, 2021 (Docket No. 355094); In re Wallace Howe Family Trust (In re Howe III), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 18, 2022 (Docket Nos. 355909, 357016, 357658, 357023, 358509, 358199, 358512); In re Estate of Beverly M. Howe (In re Howe IV), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2023 (Docket Nos. 360090, 360890, -1- the inability of Thomas and Steven Howe (Steven) to agree on any matter related to their mother’s care and estate, and Thomas’s penchant for litigating those disputes. As this Court has explained, because Thomas and Steven “disagreed on nearly every aspect of caring for [their mother Beverly] and managing her assets, the probate court appointed an independent guardian and an independent conservator to oversee her care and property. After [her] death, the court appointed Kyle Riem as personal representative of her estate[, while] George Rizik served as trustee of the Beverly Howe Family Trust.” In re Estate of Beverly M. Howe (In re Howe IV), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2023 (Docket Nos. 360090, 360890, 360578, 360360, 360891, 361379), p. 3. In this appeal, which Thomas pursues in propria persona, he advances at least 27 issues. Thomas’s claim of appeal relates to the probate court’s December 19, 2023 order, which approved the personal representative’s request for fiduciary fees, discharged the personal representative from liability, and closed the estate. Nearly all of Thomas’s arguments are far afield from the challenged order of the probate court, but we have considered all of them, and we now affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This Court has recounted the procedural history in this matter in four prior opinions. While much of the procedural history is not directly applicable to the claims now before this Court, the context is beneficial. In August 1996, Beverly created the Beverly M. Howe Revocable Trust, and in 2001, Beverly’s husband, Wallace Howe, died. Beverly amended and “restated” the Revocable Trust in December 2011, naming herself as trustee, with her son Thomas as the successor trustee, and her other son Steven as the alternate successor trustee. In September 2014, Beverly created the Beverly M. Howe Family Trust and the Wallace Howe Family Trust (collectively “the Family Trusts”) through separate trust agreements, which named her sons, Steven and Thomas, as the co- trustees and beneficiaries. In 2017, Beverly was diagnosed with dementia. In 2018, a guardianship petition was filed, which resulted in the probate court appointing Kraig Sippell as Beverly’s guardian. During the guardianship proceedings, the probate court held Thomas in contempt several times for violating various court orders. Petitions were also filed in the probate court concerning the Family Trusts, resulting in Thomas and Steven being removed as trustees, and George F. Rizik, II (Rizik) being appointed to serve as successor trustee of the Family Trusts. In 2020, Rizik petitioned the probate court to supervise the administration of the Revocable Trust, claiming Beverly was not capable of acting as trustee of the Revocable Trust, and requesting that the probate court order the administration of the Revocable Trust be supervised, that Beverly be removed as trustee, and that Sippell be appointed as the substitute or successor trustee. Thomas
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
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 HOWE ESTATE.
THOMAS HOWE, UNPUBLISHED June 06, 2025 Appellant, 3:06 PM
v No. 369299 Genesee Probate Court KYLE RIEM, Personal Representative, LC No. 21-216835-DE
Appellee,
and
STEVEN HOWE,
Other Party.
Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
For his seventeenth appeal in the last five years, Appellant Thomas Howe (Thomas) is
before this Court with challenges to his mother’s guardianship, death, estate, and family trusts, and the probate court’s handling of those matters.1 The procedural history is replete with examples of
1 In re Beverly M. Howe Revocable Trust (In re Howe I), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 27, 2021 (Docket No. 354458); In re Beverly Howe Family Trust (In re Howe II), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 2, 2021 (Docket No. 355094); In re Wallace Howe Family Trust (In re Howe III), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 18, 2022 (Docket Nos. 355909, 357016, 357658, 357023, 358509, 358199, 358512); In re Estate of Beverly M. Howe (In re Howe IV), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2023 (Docket Nos. 360090, 360890,
-1-
the inability of Thomas and Steven Howe (Steven) to agree on any matter related to their mother’s care and estate, and Thomas’s penchant for litigating those disputes. As this Court has explained, because Thomas and Steven “disagreed on nearly every aspect of caring for [their mother Beverly] and managing her assets, the probate court appointed an independent guardian and an independent conservator to oversee her care and property. After [her] death, the court appointed Kyle Riem as personal representative of her estate[, while] George Rizik served as trustee of the Beverly Howe Family Trust.” In re Estate of Beverly M. Howe (In re Howe IV), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2023 (Docket Nos. 360090, 360890, 360578, 360360, 360891, 361379), p. 3. In this appeal, which Thomas pursues in propria persona, he advances at least 27 issues. Thomas’s claim of appeal relates to the probate court’s December 19, 2023 order, which approved the personal representative’s request for fiduciary fees, discharged the personal representative from liability, and closed the estate. Nearly all of Thomas’s arguments are far afield from the challenged order of the probate court, but we have considered all of them, and we now affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This Court has recounted the procedural history in this matter in four prior opinions. While
much of the procedural history is not directly applicable to the claims now before this Court, the context is beneficial. In August 1996, Beverly created the Beverly M. Howe Revocable Trust, and in 2001, Beverly’s husband, Wallace Howe, died. Beverly amended and “restated” the Revocable Trust in December 2011, naming herself as trustee, with her son Thomas as the successor trustee, and her other son Steven as the alternate successor trustee. In September 2014, Beverly created the Beverly M. Howe Family Trust and the Wallace Howe Family Trust (collectively “the Family Trusts”) through separate trust agreements, which named her sons, Steven and Thomas, as the co- trustees and beneficiaries.
In 2017, Beverly was diagnosed with dementia. In 2018, a guardianship petition was filed,
which resulted in the probate court appointing Kraig Sippell as Beverly’s guardian. During the guardianship proceedings, the probate court held Thomas in contempt several times for violating various court orders. Petitions were also filed in the probate court concerning the Family Trusts, resulting in Thomas and Steven being removed as trustees, and George F. Rizik, II (Rizik) being appointed to serve as successor trustee of the Family Trusts.
In 2020, Rizik petitioned the probate court to supervise the administration of the Revocable
Trust, claiming Beverly was not capable of acting as trustee of the Revocable Trust, and requesting that the probate court order the administration of the Revocable Trust be supervised, that Beverly be removed as trustee, and that Sippell be appointed as the substitute or successor trustee. Thomas
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools