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

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from community service to fines, to jail or prison...

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.

As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.

How to Dispute an Insurance Adjustment

When something drastic happens, many people need to take extra steps to rebuild your home, recover property, or pay medical bill collectors. Unfortunately, most people believe they have no backup plan if their insurance company refuses their claim...

PROBATE 28: Probate court enters a protective order providing support for a community spouse.

A probate court’s consideration of the couple’s circumstances cannot involve an assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care.

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).

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
734-366-4405