Case No: Circuit:

Court of Appeals:

Michigan Court of Appeals

DOCKETING STATEMENT

Please read before completing form. MCR 7.204(H) and 7.205(D)(3) require an appellant in a civil action to complete and file a

docketing statement within 28 days after the claim of appeal is filed or the application for leave to appeal is granted. Failure to timely file this document may lead to dismissal of the appeal. An appellee may respond by filing a separate docketing statement.

This document will be used to screen the appeal for suitability and eligibility for the settlement conference program, and will be used to help resolve jurisdictional and transcript issues. It is important that you complete this form accurately and legibly.

The issues identified in the docketing statement do no limit appellants presentation of the issues in appellants brief. Omission of an issue in the docketing statement will not provide a basis for a motion to strike appellants brief.

1. Case Name: Appellant Appellant

Appellee Appellee

Name of first Plaintiff Name of first Defendant

(10/06) E-File Docketing Statement page 1

Address:

Telephone No:

Address:

Telephone No:

Attorney Name: Bar No: Address:

Telephone No:

Attorney Name: Bar No: Address:

Telephone No:

2. A bankruptcy or other proceeding has been filed which affects this Courts jurisdiction over this appeal.

Identify and explain.

3. There are pending or prior appeals in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court which arose out of the same transaction, lower court case, or between the same parties.

Specify case name, lower court number, appellate court number(s), and citation, if available.

4. I am aware of the following pending appeals in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court raising the same or closely related issues.

Specify case name, lower court number, appellate court number(s), and citation, if available.

1187628CA (Prob)327012

In re Martha Ann Grimm

1330 West Summit AvenueMuskegon, MI 49443-0041

(734) 717-4900

Eric C. Grimm 58990P.O. Box 41Muskegon, MI 49443-0041

(734) 717-4900

P.W. Services, Inc.

40 Concord AvenueMuskegon, MI 49443-0041

(231) 728-1102

Gregory R. Todd 70978 P.O. Box 164Grand Haven, MI 49417-0164

(616) 442-5291

In re Martha Ann Grimm, Court of Appeals Case No. 326240. The two cases have been consolidated.

See answer to Question 3.

(10/06) E-File Docketing Statement page 2

5. Identify all the lower court hearings. Type of proceeding (i.e. motion, trial, etc.) Date(s) Occurred Court Reporter

6. Nature of case:a. If the lower court case number provided on page 1 does not include a suffix, please specify

the circuit court case code (i.e. NI, CK, etc):

b. Identify the procedural nature of the case being appealed. arbitration bench trial post-judgment action declaratory judgment interlocutory matter jury trial summary disposition administrative proceeding (specify agency) other (i.e. default judgment)

7. Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result in the trial court. Conclusory statements such as the judgment of the trial court is not supported by law are unacceptable. Attach additional pages as needed.

8. Briefly state the issues to be raised in this appeal. Attach additional pages as needed.

9. The amount and terms of the judgment appealed are:

10. Settlement negotiations. (Check all boxes that apply.) Settlement negotiations have been conducted or are scheduled. Settlement is unlikely. Other

Date: Signature: /s/ (mm/dd/yyyy)

that the faithless fiduciary's fees on appeal be extracted from the protected

individual's assets.

Please also see the Motion to Consolidate filed in No. 326240.

Motion April 7, 2015 Kathy Larkin

See Docketing Statement for Case No. 326240 (consolidated case).

CA (conservatorship)

order shifting appellate attorney fees, on appeal not yet heard

Martha Grimm's house is North Muskegon is worth $115,000.00. In 2012, the guardian ad litem appointed by the probate court, attempted to engineer its sale, and recommended a contractor who pegged the sale price at $50,000.00 ($65K below market). In 2014, another run was taken at selling the house below market, this time at a $100,000 price point (15-20K below market). The conservator was changed in order to steer the commission to a particular real estate agent. The sale was opposed on breach of fiduciary grounds. In order to deter an appeal challenging the actions of the faithless fiduciary, the Probate Court ordered

individual's assets, rather than being paid for by the faithless fiduciary.

1. Whether the trial court erred in multiplying the financial harm to the protected individual by subsidizing a litigation opponent's appeal fees out of the ward's estate? 2. Whether the Court of Appeals or the trial court ought to be deciding who pays appellate attorney fees?

All fees incurred by the fiduciary accused of subordinating the protected individual's interest, to the financial interests of other persons, defending a meritorious appeal, are to be taken out of the protected

Appellant is always willing to discuss settlement, but PW Services remains unwilling.

06/03/2015 Eric C. Grimm (P58990)