PROBATE 20: The age of an adult is not a proper ground for disqualification under EPIC.

In 2016, David was diagnosed with early onset dementia. He continued to live alone until his ex-wife and the mother of their children brought David to live with her in the couple’s former marital home. June arranged for David to execute a durable power of attorney, which she used to sell his condominium. She also changed at least one of the passwords on his financial accounts. David’s brothers believed that June was preventing David from seeing them outside her presence, and suspected that she was taking advantage of David’s incapacitated condition.

The brothers filed petitions for conservatorship and guardianship, respectively. June and her children each filed competing petitions.

The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and took testimony from the whole family. The evidence revealed significant distrust between June and David’s brothers. June claimed that on the advice of her prior counsel, she prohibited the brothers from visiting David. The brothers expressed fears that June would use David’s assets to help pay the significant college debt that she and the children had accumulated. Despite the brothers’ antipathy toward June, they agree that she provided David with good care and that he was comfortable, happy and stable in her home.

The court ultimately invalidated June’s power of attorney because David was not competent to execute it in March 2017. The court found that June was not an appropriate choice for fiduciary because she interfered in David’s relationship with his brothers and David needed the support of all family members. The court also noted that June refused to definitively promise that she would continue caring for David if his brothers were named guardian and conservator.

The court’s explanation for not naming the children as David’s guardian and conservator was due to their young age, 26 and 19.

The court appointed an independent third party as David’s guardian and conservator. The record reflects that June continues to care for David, and David remains in her home.

The children appeal, claiming that either they or June should have been named as David’s guardian and conservator.

The Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., establishes an order of priority that must be followed when a probate court selects a guardian and conservator for a protected person.

MCL 700.5313(2)(b) and (c) permit a person to choose his or her guardian. MCL 700.5313(2)(d) and MCL 700.5409(1)(b) give high priority in guardianship and conservatorship actions to individuals designated by the incapacitated person “as a patient advocate” or as an “attorney in fact in a durable power of attorney.” But in this case, the probate court found that David was not competent to execute a power of attorney in March 2017.

Pursuant to MCL 700.5313(3)(b) and MCL 700.5409(1)(d), David’s adult children were then in the top priority position to serve as David’s guardian and conservator. Yet, the probate court passed over them in favor of a hired custodian.

The age of an adult is not a proper ground for disqualification under EPIC. As adults, the children are fully qualified to serve as guardians and conservators for their father. Adulthood is all that is required under EPIC.

Because the probate court based its decision on an improper factor “young age” and speculation rather than actual evidence of insuitability, the appeals court vacated the trial court's order appointing an independent guardian and conservator, and remanded for further proceedings.

An important component of most comprehensive estate plans is the power of attorney designation. This gives someone authority to make decisions on your behalf if you cannot. Our estate planning attorneys at Aldrich Legal Services can give you the legal guidance you need to make an important decision like this.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery and Burglary

Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of someone’s personal property by...

Do I Have To Go To Court If I Get A Divorce?

If you’re contemplating a divorce in Michigan, you probably have a lot of questions. One of the most intimidating aspects of getting a divorce in Michigan or anywhere else is the idea of having to appear in court. The laws for getting a...

Do I Need A Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement is not only for the wealthy people in society, like Hollywood celebrities and the like but also for any couple that brings personal assets, property, debts or children from a former relationship into the marriage. This...

PROBATE 19: Respondent argues she did not receive notice of hearing until five days before.

Respondent argues that she was denied her right to due process of law because she did not receive notice of the hearing until five days before it took place. Respondent argues that the five-day notice of hearing violated her right to due process. Due process generally requires that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action and to provide them an opportunity to be heard.

WILLS/TRUSTS 11: Allegations that a trustee violated his fiduciary duties.

MCL 700.7803 states that a trustee shall act as would a prudent person in dealing with the property of another, including following the standards of the Michigan prudent investor rule. If the trustee has special skills or is named trustee on the basis of representation of special skills or expertise, the trustee is under a duty to use those skills. MCL 700.7810 states that a trustee shall take reasonable steps to take control of and protect the trust property.

How Is Probation Violated?

If you are on probation, it means you have the judge's trust and have been allowed some level of freedom. Now you must work on ensuring you don’t violate your probation. You will need to abide by every term that the criminal court judge...

REAL ESTATE 25: Foreclosure and sheriff’s sale, redemption period expired.

In lieu of an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing essentially that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims related to the Property because plaintiff’s legal interest in the Property was extinguished through properly conducted foreclosure proceedings and the redemption period had expired and that none of plaintiff’s claims had legal merit.

I Was Arrested- Can I Question The Cop?

There are things that the police wouldn’t want people to know, and this is for the apparent reason that their investigations wouldn’t yield many convictions as they would like. The role of a police officer is to make arrests followed by...

REAL ESTATE 24: Court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for failure to join third party.

Defendants’ counter-complaint sought a declaration, among other things, that defendants had acquired a legal right to use the Drive as a means to access their property. But defendants did not add the LLC, the owner of the Drive, as a party to their suit. Consequently, the trial court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for easement rights because of the failure to join LLC—a necessary party.

Can Your Marriage Be Annulled?

An annulment officially erases a marriage. In Michigan, it is harder to get your marriage annulled than it is to get a divorce. The annulment procedure is very similar to the divorce process, and you need filing of the right documents and service...

Estate Planning- What Errors You Should Avoid?

Estate planning is a task financial experts say you should never neglect. Despite this, according to a 2017 survey, 6 in 10 Americans don't have a will. While not doing any estate planning is the biggest mistake of all, here are three...

REAL ESTATE 22: Court found denial of rezoning from multiple-family to commercial invalid.

Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the rezoning denial deprived it of its constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition. The briefs largely focused on whether defendant had treated the Property differently from other properties in the downtown area and whether it had legitimate reasons for doing so.

FAMILY LAW 24: Plaintiff-mother denied her motion to change parenting time.

The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 authorizes a trial court to issue custody and parenting-time orders that are in the child’s best interests. A showing of proper cause or change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting-time order. The movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists.

Custody of Pets In A Divorce

Divorce comes with confusion and mixed emotions. The question of who gets custody of pets may be even more confusing- especially since pets can begin to feel like family. Courts often look out for the interest of human children and allow for shared...

PROBATE 14: Trial court found involuntary mental health treatment appropriate.

To receive involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001, a petitioner is required to establish that respondent has a mental illness and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

BUSINESS LAW 6: Membership dispute in a LLC.

Based on the testimony, the trial court ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the assets of the LLC. The trial court also directed the LLC to make a distribution to plaintiff, which represented the 49% share owed to him to compensate for defendant’s distribution.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000