IN RE RUTH EWERS CIARAMITARO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re RUTH EWERS CIARAMITARO.
RUTH EWERS CIARAMITARO, a/k/a RUTH
EWERS BAKER,
UNPUBLISHED
July 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 223630
Oakland Probate Court
LC No. 82-021273-AD
ESTATE OF ROBERT GEORGE EWERS,
Deceased,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Saad and E. M. Thomas*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a probate court order denying her motion to set aside an
order of adoption. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff is the daughter of the late Robert Ewers, who was never married to plaintiff’s
mother. 1n 1984, the probate court terminated Ewers’ parental rights and plaintiff was adopted
by her mother’s husband. After Ewers died in 1999, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the order
of adoption so she could inherit Ewers’ estate. The probate court determined that the adoption
had been proper under MCL 710.37 and denied the motion.
Plaintiff first contends that service of notice of the proceedings on Ewers was improper
and thus the probate court lacked jurisdiction. We disagree. First, service by mail was proper
under PCR 752.1(b). Personal service was not required because Ewers was not being served
with a notice of intent to release or consent. PCR 752.1(a). Second, while lack of notice to a
parent may divest the court of jurisdiction over delinquency or termination proceedings brought
under Chapter XIIA of the probate code, MCL 712A.12; In re Atkins, 237 Mich App 249, 250251; 602 NW2d 594 (1999), this case involved adoption proceedings under Chapter X of the
probate code, making MCL 712A.12 inapplicable. Third, plaintiff lacks standing to object to the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
manner of service as to a party other than herself. Slattery v Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co, 254
Mich 671, 678; 236 NW 902 (1931).
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Edward M. Thomas
-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.
