This case arises from an Adult Protective Services (APS) petition for guardianship of the ward. The ward lived with her son and his wife. APS’s petition filed in June 2018 claimed that the ward had dementia, was being left...
The decedent died intestate in 2017, leaving eight children as his descendants. The probate court appointed a personal representative (PR) of the estate.
Intestate
If you die without a will then you died intestate. Without a validly executed...
The parties, R, B, and F are siblings whose father, the testator M, devised for the assets of his trust to be distributed among them. R was appointed Personal Representative of the estate and successor trustee of the trust.
Petition for Removal...
This case arises from decedent’s sister paying bills on his behalf before his death and requesting reimbursement from his estate on the basis of either a contractual or unjust enrichment basis.
Unjust Enrichment Basis
The sister...
This probate dispute between siblings arises out of the death of their father.
Their father lived alone. In 2013, however, he asked appellee to live with him. She agreed, moving into the home in August 2013. Appellants allege that in the years...
This case arises from a son’s (T) attempt to probate the estate of his mother.
Informal Probate
His mother executed a will designating T as personal representative. She later executed an amendment to her revocable trust naming T as...
Decedent died on January 9, 2017. An application for informal probate and appointment of personal representative was filed on February 17, 2017. Decedent’s final will, which was executed on March 21, 2011, was admitted to probate. In relevant...
Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.
The insurance company refused to pay the $35,000 in death proceeds to plaintiff, maintaining that the policy had lapsed in 1999 for nonpayment of premiums.
On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.
According to E’s affidavit, he disbelieved the validity of the May 2016 Will, but apparently, he took no further action regarding the Will or the coins at that time.
Plaintiff argued that defendant’s fiduciary duty was to accede to plaintiff’s precise demands and make decisions about matters involving the estate that were in accordance with the outcomes plaintiff desired. Clearly, this is not the nature of a personal representative’s fiduciary duty.
Without a validly executed will, your estate will pass by the rules of intestate succession at the time of your passing, which may or may not achieve your goals.
Before ordering a course of involuntary mental health treatment or of care and treatment at a center, the court must receive a written report or oral testimony describing the type and extent of treatment that will be provided to the individual and the appropriateness and adequacy of this treatment.
Trial courts may only appoint co-personal representatives if the intended parties agree to the shared status.
An interested person may petition for removal of a personal representative for cause at any time. As the decedent’s surviving parent, the decedent’s mother qualified as an interested person who had a claim against the intestate estate of the decedent
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.
Respondent, now represented by counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration or relief from the probate court’s order, arguing that the order inappropriately distributed trust assets before other issues in the action were resolved, and arguing further that respondent was prejudiced by his lack of notice and inability to retain counsel before the hearing.
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.
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.
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.
The $27,000 ordered to be paid to respondents from the trusts was not a sanction, but instead was reimbursement to the trustees for expenses incurred in defending the petition. The Trust contains language providing for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by trustees in administering the trust.
Despite the probate court’s order requiring Appellant to return the vehicle to R, Appellant refused to do so. Appellant’s willful noncompliance resulted in him being held in contempt of court and a sentence of four days in jail. Yet, even so, he still refused to turn the vehicle over to the personal representative.
The trial court concluded that appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding decedent’s mental capacity to properly execute his 7/14 will.
The probate judge explained that he did not do his own accounting and that he would not go through all of these bills to see whether they’ve been properly accounted for.
The probate court properly imposed a constructive trust and ordered the son to sell the mother’s home after she had deceased.
The trial court, however, indicated its belief that it would not have jurisdiction once Mother left the state. Despite counsel’s argument regarding the utility of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the probate court disagreed.
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.
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.
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.
The Michigan probate code states that for purposes of a statute of limitations, the proper presentation of a claim is equivalent to commencement of a proceeding on the claim.
The probate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition because the situs of the trust had been transferred to Florida.
Appellants argue that because they provided medical evidence and appellee did not, the trial court was bound to grant their motion. But appellants cited no legal authority that medical testimony on behalf of the non-moving party is necessary.
The trial court found that both the lease and the legal description of farmland attached to the Trust Agreement are defective because the Trust never owned the property, as evidenced by the quitclaim deed and its recording in April 1998.
MCL 700.7704(3) permits the probate court to appoint a successor trustee if one cannot be appointed in accordance with the trust.
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.
The parties agreed that the decedent properly executed the 2005 will with his wife, but the probate court was asked to rule on whether the terms of that will made it irrevocable, which would mean that the decedent could not change his estate plan by way of the 2015 will.
To establish undue influence, it must be shown that the grantor was subjected to threats, misrepresentation, undue flattery, fraud, or physical or moral coercion sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency and impel the grantor to act against his inclination and free will.
In terrorem clauses, also called “no-contest” clauses, generally provide that a beneficiary of a will or trust forfeits any interest under the instrument if the beneficiary challenges or contests any of its provisions.
As set forth in MCL 700.2502(1), there are specific formalities that are generally required to execute a valid will. However, as expressly stated in MCL 700.2502(1), there are several exceptions to these formalities.
