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

In this case, M is an institutionalized individual who receives Medicaid benefits to cover part of his healthcare costs. His spouse, R, sought a protective order under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq., claiming that she lacked sufficient income to meet her needs and asserting that she was entitled to support from M.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) opposed the petition, arguing that R did not exhaust available administrative remedies regarding Medicaid determinations, that the proposed order would leave M impoverished and unable to meet his own obligations, and that R did not need additional income from M.

A probate court has the authority to enter a protective order providing support for a community spouse whose institutionalized spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits,  but that authority does not include the power to enter an order preserving the community spouse’s standard of living without consideration of the institutionalized spouse’s needs and his or her patient-pay obligations under Medicaid. In order to issue a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3)(b), the spouse requesting support must make a showing of need, not merely a desire to maintain a current standard of living without regard to the other spouse’s circumstances.

Whether the community spouse is entitled to support will depend on all the facts and circumstances, including the incapacitated individual’s financial means and ability to provide assistance. For instance, when crafting a protective order, the probate court should consider the protected individual’s foreseeable needs, the interests of the protected individual’s creditors, and the interests of the protected individual’s dependents.

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.

Here, the probate court entered an order awarding R 100% of M’s monthly income, thereby leaving M without sufficient income to support himself. In doing so, the court reasoned: It is clear from the record that without the protective order, the joint assets will be depleted to the point that R will not be capable of supporting herself.

The DHHS argued that R was required to exhaust administrative remedies available before seeking a protective order from the probate court, and that the probate court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction until all administrative remedies were exhausted.

Absent from the court’s findings is any indication that it considered (1) whether R needed—as opposed to simply wanted—money and (2) whether R was entitled to M’s support despite the CSMIA provided under Medicaid and M’s patient-pay amount under Medicaid. Because those findings are necessary before a probate court may enter a protective support order under MCL 700.5401(3)(b), the appeals court conclude that the probate court abused its discretion by entering the order awarding R 100% of M’s monthly income.

Aldrich Legal Services offers comprehensive guidance throughout the probate process, including the filing of petitions, notices to creditors, distribution of assets to beneficiaries and other services required throughout the probate process.

To schedule a free consultation with an experienced probate and estate administration 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...

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