IN RE ESTATE OF DENISE ELLEN AQUINO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Estate of
DENISE ELLEN AQUINO,
a Legally Incapacitated Person.
ESTATE OF DENISE ELLEN AQUINO,
UNPUBLISHED
February 13, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 198576
Wayne Probate Court
LC No. 93-518528
RENATO AQUINO and DENISE ELLEN
AQUINO, Individually,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Markman, P.J., and McDonald and Cavanagh, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents Renato and Denise Aquino appeal as of right from the probate court order
removing Renato as conservator of Denise’s estate. We reverse and remand.
Respondents first argue that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to remove Renato as
conservator. Whether the probate court had jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.
See Oakland Hills Development Corp v Lueders Drainage District, 212 Mich App 284, 294; 537
NW2d 258 (1995).
Respondents contend that the probate court did not have jurisdiction because they were not
provided with notice and a hearing. Notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties
of the pendency of an action and must afford them an opportunity to present objections. Vicencio v
Jaime Ramirez, MD, PC, 211 Mich App 501, 504; 536 NW2d 280 (1995).
We conclude that respondents were not given sufficient notice of a challenge to Renato’s
conservatorship. Although by filing her petition Denise raised the question whether the conservatorship
-1
should continue, whether Renato should continue as the conservator is a separate and distinct issue.
Renato was not represented by counsel at the August 12, 1996, hearing, and did not have an adequate
opportunity to present his objections to his removal as conservator. The failure to provide proper
notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect. See In re Williams Estate, 133 Mich App 1, 8; 349 NW2d
247 (1984). Accordingly, we reverse the probate court order removing Renato as conservator and
remand for further proceedings.
Because of our resolution of the previous issue, it is unnecessary for us to address whether the
probate court erred in removing Renato as conservator.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
