RICHARD KEVIN WARD V KNUDSEN; WASIURA & ASSOC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD KEVIN WARD,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 187604
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 95-032885-NM
KNUDSEN, WASIURA & ASSOCIATES, PC,
EDWARD E. WASIURA, attorney-at-law, and
ROBERT TIMOTHY WARD and CAROL
JANETTE SMITH, Co-personal representatives for
the Estate of Robert John Ward, Deceased,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Hoekstra and J.M. Batzer*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff claims an appeal as of right from an order granting summary disposition in defendants’
favor. We affirm.
In October 1992, Robert John Ward, plaintiff’s father, died intestate. In November 1992,
defendant Edward E. Wasiura, through his law firm, defendant Knudsen, Wasiura & Associates, PC,
opened decedent’s probate estate in the Muskegon County Probate Court. In December 1992, the
probate court appointed defendant Robert T. Ward, plaintiff’s brother, as the personal representative
for the decedent’s estate. Subsequently, the probate court appointed defendant Carol J. Smith,
plaintiff’s sister, as a co-personal representative of the estate.
In January 1995, plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Ionia Circuit Court alleging that
defendants Ward and Smith negligently and fraudulently handled the settlement of his father’s estate and
that the law firm committed malpractice while representing the estate. In May 1995, the Ionia Circuit
Court granted defendants’ motion to change venue to the Muskegon Circuit Court.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
In June 1995, the Muskegon Circuit Court issued a written opinion pertaining to defendants’
motion for summary disposition. First, the circuit court determined that the probate court had
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint of negligence and fraud. Additionally, the circuit court decided that
plaintiff did not have a claim of malpractice against the law firm. As a result, plaintiff’s complaint was
dismissed, and the instant appeal ensued.
Plaintiff contends first that the circuit court improperly granted summary disposition in the law
firm’s favor under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Specifically, plaintiff argues that his claim of malpractice was
proper because the law firm clearly represented him as one of the beneficiaries of his father’s estate.
We disagree. This Court reviews de novo as a question of law a trial court’s determination concerning
a motion for summary disposition. Lindsey v Harper Hosp, 213 Mich App 422, 425; 540 NW2d 477
(1995).
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should only be granted when the plaintiff's claim is so
unenforceable as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot develop facts that could possibly justify a right
to recovery. Wade v Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). In a legal
malpractice action, the plaintiff has the burden of adequately alleging the existence of an attorney-client
relationship. Simko v Blake, 448 Mich 648, 655; 532 NW2d 842 (1995). Under current law, the law
firm represents the personal representatives of decedent’s estate, defendants Ward and Smith, not the
estate itself. MCR 5.117(A). Because an attorney-client relationship does not exist between the estate
and the law firm, we can find no attorney-client relationship between the law firm and plaintiff on the
ground presented. Consequently, no error can be found on this ground.
Plaintiff next claims that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his complaint on jurisdictional
grounds. We disagree. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.
Bruwer v Oaks (On Rem), 218 Mich App 392, 395; 554 NW2d 345 (1996). Probate courts have
exclusive legal and equitable jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the settlement of an estate. MCL
700.21(a); MSA 27.5021(a). Because plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and fraud are based upon
defendants’ actions in settling the decedent’s estate, only the probate court had the jurisdiction to hear
plaintiff’s claims against defendants. York v Isabella Bank & Trust, 146 Mich App 1, 4-5; 379
NW2d 448 (1985). Because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
complaint, it did not err when it dismissed plaintiff’s remaining causes of action. MCR 2.116(C)(4).
We affirm. Defendants, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ James M. Batzer
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.