Blog

PROBATE 26: Probate court stopped transfer because it would be detrimental to that resident.

Lisa is severely intellectually disabled and unable to care for herself or manage her estate. Her mother, Lucille, was Lisa’s predecessor guardian and cared for Lisa in her home from Lisa’s birth on February 22, 1961 through October 3, 2006, when, based upon Lucille’s declining health, Lisa transitioned to a residential treatment facility.

On March 7, 2008, Lisa was transferred to another facility. Finally, on March 1, 2009, Lisa was transferred to her current residence. Petitioner was appointed successor plenary guardian of Lisa on December 2, 2009.

On September 26, 2018, petitioner filed the petition that contended that respondent was planning to transfer Lisa from her current residence to another community placement, and sought an ex parte order denying the transfer on the ground that it would be detrimental to Lisa pursuant to MCL 330.1536.

The probate court granted ex parte relief and later held a full hearing. In lieu of testimony, respondent presented three affidavits from its employees indicating that the transfer would not be detrimental to Lisa, and therefore, respondent was statutorily entitled to move forward with the transfer.

Petitioner presented four witnesses familiar with Lisa’s situation who all testified that such a move would be detrimental to Lisa. Lisa’s lawyer-guardian ad litem indicated that, in his opinion, the probate court should favor the testimony of petitioner because of petitioner’s heavy involvement in the welfare of Lisa, and because petitioner’s history with Lisa made petitioner the most capable of predicting the outcome of a transfer.

The probate court summarized the affidavits provided by respondent and the testimony from the evidentiary hearing and concluded that the move certainly does appear to be something that would be detrimental to Lisa.

MCL 330.1536 provides:

(1) A resident in a center may be transferred to any other center, or to a hospital operated by the department, if the transfer would not be detrimental to the resident and the responsible community mental health services program approves the transfer.

(2) The resident and his or her nearest relative or guardian shall be notified at least 7 days prior to any transfer, except that a transfer may be affected earlier if necessitated by an emergency. In addition, the resident may designate 2 other persons to receive the notice. If the resident, his or her nearest relative, or guardian objects to the transfer, the department shall provide an opportunity to appeal the transfer.

(3) If a transfer is affected due to an emergency, the required notices shall be given as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours after the transfer.

The evidence in this case primarily came from seven people: three affiants and four testifying witnesses. Of those seven people, only four of them provided evidence that they had either a history with Lisa or daily interaction with Lisa such that they might reasonably be capable of opining as to how the proposed transfer might affect Lisa’s wellbeing. All four of the witnesses demonstrated a personal history with Lisa, and all of them concluded that transferring Lisa would be detrimental. None of the affidavits provided by respondent suggested that the affiants had a history with Lisa comparable to petitioner’s witnesses.

The probate court’s finding with respect to detriment was well supported by the evidence. Being sensitive to the fact that respondent must walk the tightrope of balancing the needs of consumer, sometimes against one another, with the limited resources that it has, MCL 330.1536 is clear that respondent cannot transfer a consumer if the transfer would be detrimental to that consumer.

Aldrich Legal Services represents clients in a wide range of probate litigation matters. In addition to representing local clients, we have assisted many out-of-state clients who have required legal representation to resolve probate disputes here in Michigan. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced probate litigation lawyer at our firm, contact our law office in Plymouth, Michigan.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

LITIGATION 6: The terms of the agreement prevails over the course of performance.

The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.

PROBATE 27: Petitioner filed a petition for mental-health treatment.

In support of the allegations, petitioner attached clinical certificates from a physician and a psychiatrist who observed respondent at the hospital. Both doctors diagnosed respondent with bipolar disorder, determined that she displayed a likelihood of injuring herself and that she did not understand the need for treatment, and recommended a course of treatment that consisted of 60 days of hospitalization and 90 days of outpatient care.

5 Things Everyone Should Do Before Starting a Business

So, you have a great idea and the experience to back it up. You are in a great starting place, but you have some work to do before jumping into forming your own business. Consider the following steps before you begin the process of starting your...

FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.

PROBATE 25: Daughter removed as personal representative of the estate.

the probate court determined that Daughter J had managed the estate in a manner that promoted her own interests as a beneficiary over the interests of the estate. The probate court found that such management demonstrated mismanagement of the estate and that removal of Daughter J was therefore in the best interests of the estate.

4 Last Minute Ways to Avoid Foreclosure

One tough break seems to lead to another. If you get behind on mortgage payments, you could be in danger of having your house foreclosed upon by the bank. Lenders foreclose on real estate to recoup their losses. But this means you won’t have a...

5 Necessary Sections Your Prenuptial Agreement Needs

Many big decisions come with getting engaged. Planning for marriage can be exciting and romantic, although the thought of adding a prenuptial agreement may not stoke your passion, they can help you now and in the future. Prenuptial agreements are...

REAL ESTATE 32: Plaintiffs and defendants executed a second easement.

Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.

LITIGATION 4: Plaintiff claimed installation of hardwood flooring breached the condo bylaws.

Defendants completed the project. Plaintiff did not pay for any of the costs of the project. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to pay one-half of the costs under the agreement. Plaintiff responded that defendants had materially breached the agreement in several ways, including by denying her the right to supervise the project, by refusing to give her an installation schedule, and by starting work before plaintiff approved of the start date.

FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

An Easy Guide to Navigate the Probate Process

Families can help each other through life’s toughest moments. However, issues come up when the strain of losing a loved one combines with the stress of honoring their last wishes. Probate protects beneficiaries best interests. Though...

Top 3 Misconceptions on Power of Attorney

Considering leaving the country for a long time while maintaining a business or selling a home in the US? Were you recently diagnosed with a terminal or degenerative disease? For these and many other issues, it may become necessary for someone...

FAMILY LAW 29: Quitclaim deed signed after prenuptial agreement prevails.

The court ruled that title to the land prevails and that once the deed was signed, the property became the undivided whole interest for both the decedent and appellee and became appellee’s property upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, the court concluded that the prenuptial agreement did not have any impact on the property rights of appellee in this case.

Know the Differences between Annulment and Divorce

  Marriage can end through two ways: divorce and annulment. Though both of these options have the same result, each has different requirements. There are many similarities and differences between a divorce and an annulment, so many...

Understanding Vaping Laws for Minors

  Vaping is a fad that is quickly solidifying into a stable industry of products around the world. Vaping and electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette) use have dramatically increased from roughly “seven million [users] in 2011 to 35...

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
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482