IN RE EST OF OTTO SONNENSCHMIDT DEC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Estate of OTTO SONNENSCHMIDT,
Deceased.
ELKE MORTON, Personal Representative of the
Estate of OTTO SONNENSCHMIDT, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2002
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 227196
Oakland Probate Court
LC No. 98-263847-IE
BRIGITTE SONNENSCHMIDT,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Doctoroff and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Petitioner appeals as of right from a probate court order denying her petition for
reconsideration of the determination of personal property. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In general, a party moving for reconsideration “must demonstrate a palpable error by
which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the
motion must result from correction of the error.” MCR 2.119(F)(3). Whether to grant a motion
for reconsideration is a matter left to the trial court’s discretion. Cole v Ladbroke Racing
Michigan, Inc, 241 Mich App 1, 8; 614 NW2d 169 (2000). The trial court’s ruling is reviewed
for an abuse of that discretion, which “exists when the result is so palpably and grossly violative
of fact and logic that it evidences perversity of will or the exercise of passion or bias rather than
the exercise of discretion.” Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 233; 611 NW2d 333
(2000).
Given that petitioner swore in the estate tax return that all “household goods and personal
effects” had a value of $1,500 and were part of the estate and not part of the trust, the circuit
court did not err in accepting those facts as true. It was only when petitioner realized that the
court was going to rely on those facts to defeat her claim that those items were part of the trust
that she decided to file an amended tax return. Petitioner’s abrupt change of position does not
warrant a finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration. Gibson v Bronson Methodist Hosp, 197 Mich App 67, 74; 495 NW2d 162
-1-
(1992), rev’d on other grounds 445 Mich 331; 517 NW2d 736 (1994); Brown v Libbey-OwensFord Co, 166 Mich App 213, 216-217; 420 NW2d 106 (1987).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
