Amos C. Johnson, M.D., etc. v. Rita Elizabeth Johnson, etc.

Detroit, Michigan, civil litigation lawyers represented the the parties in interpretation of a trust.



In 2000, Amos G. Johnson and his wife, Marjorie Johnson, established the Johnson

Family Trust, naming their son, Appellant Amos C. Johnson, M.D., as the first successor trustee.

Amos G. Johnson died in 2007, and Marjorie Johnson died in 2020. This case involves the

proceedings to probate Mrs. Johnson's estate.



Mrs. Johnson's daughter, Rita E. Johnson, was appointed as the executrix of her mother's

estate by the probate court in Wayne County, Michigan. The daughter initiated two probate

proceedings in that court to determine the ownership of some of her mother's assets. The

proceedings center on a pour-over provision in the decedent's will1 and whether some of her

assets belong to the Trust (and therefore pass outside of probate) or the estate (and therefore pass

through probate).



The Trust has language requiring that all disputes related to it be sent to arbitration.

When Rita Johnson (the daughter) initiated the probate proceedings, Amos C. Johnson (the son)

asked the state court to compel arbitration, and it refused.



Amos C. Johnson and the Trust then filed this action in the Eastern District of Michigan,

seeking to compel arbitration of the probate proceedings under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act

(FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 4. After Rita Johnson answered, her brother and the Trust moved for

judgment on the pleadings. Before considering the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the

district court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction "because of (1) the probate exception, (2) the prior-exclusive-

jurisdiction doctrine, or because (3) the parties are not citizens of different states.” R. 7, Order to

Show Cause, PageID 240.



The district court then dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It first

explained that plaintiffs' invocation of federal question jurisdiction was "entirely unfounded”

because the FAA does not provide "an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.” R. 13,

1A pour-over provision sends some or all of the testator's property into a trust upon the testator's death.

See, e.g., Matter of Ests. of Leggett, 378 N.W.2d 467, 467 (Mich. 1985); George G. Bogert, et al., Bogert's the Law

of Trusts and Trustees § 105 (May 2025 Update).No. 24-2058 Johnson, et al. v. Johnson Page 3

Opinion and Order, PageID 389 (quoting Bay Shore Power Co. v. Oxbow Energy Sols., LLC, 969

F.3d 660, 664 (6th Cir. 2020)). The district court then explained that it lacked diversity

jurisdiction because the proceedings in the state court were brought in rem, and the proceeding in

federal court "would interfere with the state probate court's custody over the disputed assets” by

"plac[ing] them at the disposal of the arbitral body charged with adjudicating the dispute.” R.

13, Opinion and Order,

Dismissed.



Affirmed