Skip to main content

Capacity to Nominate

The question is this: When a person who is the subject of a petition for guardianship or conservatorship nominates an individual they want to serve in those capacities, to what extent is the court required to grant the nominated individual a priority of appointment?  A new unpublished opinion discusses that question, and while I think the opinion falls short in some respects, the issue comes up routinely in contested guardianship and conservatorship matters and this case offers the opportunity to delve into the law.  So here we go:

Let’s start with the law.

MCL 700.5313(2) provides the order of appointment for a guardianship. Its relevant provisions say:

(2) In appointing a guardian under this section, the court shall appoint a person, if suitable and willing to serve, in the following order of priority:

(a) A person previously appointed, qualified, and serving in good standing as guardian for the legally incapacitated individual in another state.

(b) A person the individual subject to the petition chooses to serve as guardian.

(c) A person nominated as guardian in a durable power of attorney or other writing by the individual subject to the petition.

(d) A person named by the individual as a patient advocate or attorney in fact in a durable power of attorney.

For a conservatorship the relevant language is in MCL 700.5409(1), which says:

(1) The court may appoint an individual, a corporation authorized to exercise fiduciary powers, or a professional conservator described in section 5106 to serve as conservator of a protected individual’s estate. The following are entitled to consideration for appointment in the following order of priority:

(a) A conservator, guardian of property, or similar fiduciary appointed or recognized by the appropriate court of another jurisdiction in which the protected individual resides.

(b) An individual or corporation nominated by the protected individual if he or she is 14 years of age or older and of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice, including a nomination made in a durable power of attorney.

These provisions are similar, but importantly different:

While both statutes provide that, unless someone has already been appointed to serve as guardian or conservator by another state, the highest priority goes the person nominated by the proposed ward. But in the guardianship context, the law provides that the court “shall appoint” the person with priority if they are suitable and willing to serve. In a conservatorship proceeding, the court “may appoint” and having a priority merely provides that such persons “are entitled to consideration.”

Interestingly, the conservatorship statute says that before considering a person nominated by the proposed ward, the court must find that the proposed ward “is of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice.” In the guardianship context there is no requirement that the proposed ward be capable of making a good choice.

The guardianship law also elevates the person nominated by the proposed ward at the hearing above a person previously nominated in a power of attorney or patient advocate designation. In the conservatorship context, those two forms of priority are equal.

For the record, both statutes are further buttressed by MCL 700.5106 which more specifically addresses the limitations placed on a court with respect to the appointment of a public fiduciary.

All three cited statutes are linked to the law, which can be read in their entirety by clicking on the statute.

Now let’s look at the case of  In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of David P. VanPoppelen.  Click on the name to read the opinion.  Click here to read the concurrence/dissent which goes into an interesting issue about suitability, which, for the sake of brevity, I won’t discuss in this post.

In this case, the proposed ward (“David”) nominated June to be his guardian and conservator.  He did so both in his power of attorney and patient advocate designation, and he did so when he was questioned by the court-appointed guardian ad litem.  But the trial court bypassed June by finding that the David was not competent to execute the patient advocate designation and power of attorney when they were executed, and further, the court says “He was similarly incompetent to informally select his fiduciary.”

So my complaint with this holding is that while I think the court was certainly within its power to invalidate a power of attorney and patient advocate designation based on a finding of lack of capacity at the time of execution; and to bypass June as conservator by finding, in accordance with MCL 700.5409, that David lacked the ability to “make an intelligent choice” at the time of his verbal nomination; because MCL 700.5313 (the guardianship law) does not include a provision that allows the court to make a verbal nomination contingent on the existing mental capacity of the proposed ward, to my thinking, June should have been given the priority in the guardianship matter.

In conclusion, although I think this court provided an imperfect analysis, I appreciate the opportunity to review the law as it relates to this important question.

Test of Capacity is a Function of Complexity

Party A argued that because a person executed a financial power of attorney and patient advocate designation in June of 2013, the trial court should have found that said person must have been competent to execute a shareholder’s proxy signed in December of that same year. But the trial court found otherwise.

In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals says: Not only is it reasonable for the trial court to have concluded that the person’s capacity diminished in the intervening months, but – wait for it –  – –  it is also true that a proxy is a different thing than a power of attorney and therefore the test for capacity is not the same.

That, my friends, is a proposition that is commonly argued, but heretofore not so clearly stated in Michigan law. The proposition that the test of capacity is a function of the complexity of the decision being challenged comes up in litigation all the time. And this is a published decision.  (emphasis added)

Menhennick Family Trust v Timothy Menhennick (click on the name to read the case) purports to be about the meaning of a statute in the Business Corporation Act, but the holding primarily turns on the issue of capacity. Several large chunks of this relatively short opinion clearly state the rules relating to a finding of capacity and how that test can vary with the decision at issue.  Well worth the read.

This is an important decision for probate litigators. I know I will be citing this decision in cases to come, and I am sure others will as well.

Summary Affirmed in Undue Influence Case

In Re Margaret Krum Trust is an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals dealing with undue influence. [Click on the name to read the case.]  This is a case that was handled by our firm.  We represented the appellee.

Two sisters were cut out of their mother’s trust, and contested the validity of the document when their mother died. They originally pled undue influence and lack of capacity, but withdrew the incapacity claim after discovery was complete.  Our client, the Trustee, brought a motion for summary disposition on the remaining claim of undue influence, and prevailed.  The appeal was from that order.

In affirming the trial court, the COA addresses two points worth noting:

First, the COA says that the existence of a financial power of attorney nominating the alleged undue influencer as agent is sufficient to establish the element of a fiduciary relationship for the purpose of giving rise to the presumption of undue influence, even when there is no evidence that the nominated agent ever exercised any authority under the document.

Second, the COA holds that summary disposition can be granted in an undue influence case even when the presumption of undue influence has been established. This appears to be an accurate statement of the law, even though other panels of the COA have, at times, held otherwise.

If you read the case you will note that the COA deals with the issue of after discovered evidence in the context of a motion for reconsideration. Kind of an interesting twist in this case, if you’re looking for more.

And if you read the case you also learn that the scrivener of the contested document was our friend and colleague Danielle Streed. Thanks for your help in this matter Danielle.

Finally, our own Drummond Black did all the heavy lifting on the MSD and COA briefs. Thanks D. You’re the best!

Great Facts and Experts Can’t Survive Summary

An unpublished opinion today that looks at the question of when expert opinions are sufficient to create a question of fact, versus when they remain mere speculation; in the context of a motion for summary disposition.

In In Re Jeannine A. Palazzo Irrevocable Trust (click on the name to read the case), the attorney/trustee failed to inform beneficiaries of his activities in relation to an irrevocable life insurance trust (an “ILIT”) established for their benefit by an aunt. During the years leading up to the aunt/settlor’s death, the liquidity in the ILIT was depleted to the point of near insolvency.  This prompted the attorney/trustee to liquidate the policy for $36,000 and by doing so give up the $500,000 death benefit. As it turns out, he did this just days before the death of the aunt/settlor.

The successor trustee sued attorney/trustee for breach, and presented testimony of an expert estate planning lawyer and an accountant, both of whom opined that had the attorney/trustee performed his fiduciary duties with respect to informing the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries could have taken steps to protect their interests and potentially preserved the policy so as to receive some or all of the death benefit.

An Interesting Question

The trustee/attorney moved for summary disposition in the trial court and prevailed on the argument that merely speculating that the beneficiaries could have or might have taken steps to alter the outcome is insufficient, if you don’t explain what they would have done and when.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, adopting the proposition that merely speculating that something could have been done is insufficient to create a question of fact sufficient to survive summary disposition.

An Uncomfortable Result

A central premise to trust law is that beneficiaries are empowered to protect their interests by being provided information. A trustee protects itself by providing that information.  When a trustee fails to provide the required information, the law holds the trustee liable for the resulting damages and does not allow the trustee the protection of time barriers to claims that would otherwise arise.

For a court to conclude that although a trustee breached its duties by failing to provide the required information, but that the trustee is nonetheless absolved of liability on summary disposition even where experts have opined that something could have been done had the information been provided, just feels wrong.

Conclusion

Bottom line is the beneficiaries lost on summary because they did not specifically state what could have been done to alter the outcome had the missing information been provided. While that seems like a fine line to draw; that is the line that worked in this case, and a line litigators will want to remember when they need to make the same distinction in future matters.

They say it is an ill-wind that blows no one good, and no doubt there is one trustee/attorney who will be full of Thanksgiving today.

The Next BIG Thing in Michigan Trust Law

Legislation currently moving through Michigan’s House and Senate will, if passed, dramatically impact the world of trust law in Michigan, and especially the drafting of discretionary trusts. Indications are that there is a good chance this legislation will become law before the year end. And so …. it’s probably time to start thinking about it.

The new law alters the way that trusts agreements can be crafted with respect to the roles of trustees and other fiduciary and non-fiduciary parties involved in the administration of a trust. While the proposed law is Michigan’s adoption of the Uniform Directed Trust Act, it goes well beyond the Uniform Act, particularly with respect to the provisions related to separate trustees.  In fact, it is probably best to understand this new development as two distinct changes to the law: (1) Rules relating to use of separate trustees when drafting discretionary trusts, and (2) the elimination of the Trust Protector, and replacement of that office with the Trust Director.

Separate Trustees

The new law defines several new types of roles and relationships that can be used in drafting trusts.

The law uses the term “Separate Trustee” to identify one of three types of separate trustees that have discrete powers and duties. They are:

* Investment Trustee. A Trustee exclusively responsible for investing the trust assets.

* Distributions Trustee. A Trustee exclusively responsible for making discretionary distributions of trust assets.  Note: There is no provision for a distributions trustee with respect to non-discretionary interests.

* Resultant Trustee. The Trustee responsible for all actions not otherwise allocated to an investment or distribution trustee.

So Long Trust Protectors

In addition to the creating laws to support the use of separate trustees (discussed above), the new law introduces the term “Trust Director” which equates roughly to what many would have heretofore defined as a Trust Protector. The scope of powers that can be given to a Trust Director are broad and it is not necessary for the trust agreement to have appointed separate trustees for the agreement to implement the use of a Trust Director.  The MTC defined the term “Trust Protectors” when it came into being in 2010, which was an important development associated with that legislation.  But with these changes, that term is removed and no longer defined.  [It is unclear (to me) how Courts will construe this term going forward, and what rules will apply to trust protectors appointed in documents.  In many instances, the powers typically allocated to a trust protector would seemingly result in those persons falling within the scope of what is now defined as a “Trust Director.”]

The law also then introduces the term “directed trustee” to refer to a trustee who takes direction from a trust director.

It’s All About Liability

With respect to the separate trustee provisions of the law, the idea is that without collusion, a separate trustee is not responsible for the acts of another separate trustee. And this is really the central legal development that makes this aspect of the new law click.  Heretofore, you could draft trusts with co-trustees and give them each a discrete role in the administration of a trust – but you could not, thereby, allow one trustee to be non-liable for the breach of their fellow co-trustee.  Now, by using this approach, you can.

In the simplest example, what that means is that you can appoint a bank as the investment trustee, and appoint the trust beneficiary’s sibling as the distributions trustee, and neither will be responsible for the other’s foibles. That is true even if the bank knew or should have known that the sibling was engaged in a breach, and vice versa.  Again, the exception would be if the separate trustees were colluding with each other with respect to the inappropriate conduct.  This development will make it much easier to have professional investment companies assume trusteeships over the investments, where others are making decisions about discretionary distributions.

When a power is exercised in a fiduciary capacity and when it is not; when a trustee or trust director is subject to liability and when they are not; are all addressed in detail in the legislation.

Special Needs Planning and Discretionary Trusts

In no area of trust planning will these changes be more relevant than in the drafting of discretionary trusts. And while there are many discretionary trusts that are not special needs trusts, all special needs trusts are discretionary trusts. The complexity of discretionary trust drafting will increase significantly with the passage of these laws, as will the opportunities to be more creative in the drafting of such trusts.

“Keep it simple” has long been the mantra of drafting SNTs. It is well recognized that the more detailed an SNT, the more likely the document is to be reviewed and perhaps challenged by the government entities which provide benefits to the SNT beneficiary.  For “high end” SNT planners, this opportunity might be an exception to that rule. The ability to work with institutional investors may mandate the adoption of separate trustee provisions.

The idea that you will soon have new tools to allow financial institutions to manage the money in the SNT, while having the family members (or family lawyer) make the decisions about how resources are used to improve the quality of life of the beneficiary is huge, and a big reason SNT planners will need to carefully consider how this legislation will change their practices. As everyone in the SNT world knows, banks and other financial institutions have attempted to gain entry into the world of special needs planning, but they are inevitably ill-suited to mange the distribution decisions associated with taking on the role of trustee. This legislation provides a safe harbor approach which allows them to manage the money while taking them off the hook of doing the dirty work of special needs trust administration.

These new laws offer SNT planners an opportunity that in many instances will be too hard to pass up, but they come with requirement that special needs trust drafters elevate their games.  Dabblers in SNT drafting beware.

IF You Decide To Go There

The good news for some no doubt, is you don’t have to use separate trustees or trust directors or otherwise incorporate these options into your trust agreements. And in fact, most simple “will substitute” trusts wouldn’t need or benefit from such provisions.

But if you draft inter vivos irrevocable trusts, or draft any trusts that continue after death, you will want to consider the possible benefits of these new tools. If you do, you need to read the statute carefully, because there are a whole host of requirements that spell out what has to be express in the trust agreement, and a handful of rules that cannot be altered or negated by your drafting.

If you have used Trust Protectors in your documents in the past, or want to use the concept in the future, you will need to understand the term Trust Director, how it differs from a Trust Protector and what the rules are in terms of appointment, exculpation and scope of authority.

So for many, keeping it simple may be best. For others, the possibilities will be too intriguing.  At times, perhaps, the objectives of the client may demand separate trustee provisions, and it may be malpractice to draft agreements that are not sufficiently attentive to these new rules.

Conclusion

It’s been a wild ride since Michigan adopted the Michigan Trust Code in 2010. In the eight years since, we’ve seen dramatic additional developments to Michigan trust law, including domestic self-settled asset protection trusts and liberalized decanting rules. This is the next big thing.

Michigan’s own Jim Spica is a member of the Uniform Directed Trust Act Committee, and the primary author of Michigan’s proposed law. As with everything Jim touches, this legislation is thorough and thoughtful.  To read the legislation in its present form click on the following House Bill links:

HB 6129 (Relating to the provisions for Separate Trustees)

HB 6130 (Relating to the Provisions for Trust Directors)

HB 6131 (Corresponding changes to other provisions of EPIC and the MTC)

And if f you are really in love with this topic, click here to read the Uniform Act, which includes commentary. If you look you will see that Michigan’s law varies significantly in many substantive ways from the Uniform Act.

Henry Ford Village Refund Policy Upheld by COA

Henry Ford Village is a large senior housing provider in the metro Detroit area. At least some of their residents enter into continuing care contracts that require an up front entrance fee, some or all of which fee can later be refunded in accordance with the terms of the admissions contract.

In the case of Reginald Smith, he paid $152,000 when he entered. When he died, the trustee of his trust and the personal representative of his estate recovered only about $127,000.  The Trustee/P.R. did not dispute that the refund would appropriately be reduced by about $10,000, but did contest the reduction of the other approximately $15,000.  That difference arose because of a provision in the contract that said that the refund would be contingent on the admission of a new replacement resident, and the payment by the new resident of a new entrance fee.  After Mr. Smith died and some time passed during which no new resident was found who was willing to pay the full entrance fee, the Trustee/P.R. entered into a modification of the contract to allow the space to be filled by a new resident who paid a reduced entrance fee – reduced by the disputed $15,000.

The Trustee/P.R. sued Henry Ford Village and various related entities for the $15,000 difference, and lost in the trial court level on summary disposition. The appeal followed from that decision.

In the second paragraph of the COA opinion, the panel notes that: “At oral argument, plaintiff conceded that HFV violated none of the terms of its contract with the decedent or agreement with plaintiff, as those documents are actually written.”

And, for Plaintiff/Appellant, it goes downhill from there. Downhill even to the point of the COA becoming insulting toward the work of Appellant’s legal counsel.  Among other things, the COA characterizes the Appellant’s brief as “exceedingly loquacious and difficult to comprehend.”   Loquacious means wordy.  The COA affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

I report on the opinion because it is published (although I don’t know why), and many people who practice in this area of law no doubt intersect with Henry Ford Village and advise clients about continuing care community contracts. If there’s a lesson here (and I’m not sure that there is), I believe the lesson might be that continuing care community contracts are complicated and are likely drafted in a way that favors the financial interests of the people managing the facility.

Click here to read Smith Living Trust and Estate of Reginald Smith v Henry Ford Village, et al.

Opinion puts Fees of Former PR’s (and their Attorneys) at Risk

If you are a lawyer who handles probate estate administration, you will want to take note of this unpublished Court of Appeals opinion. The gravamen of this decision is that a claim for fees by a personal representative who has been removed or who resigns, will be barred unless it is filed within four months of their removal or resignation; and the same would be true of the fees for legal services or other professional services provided to the former PR.

In In Re Estate of Jack Edward Busselle (click on name to read the case), the Court of Appeals construes the provisions of MCL 700.3803 (click here to read the statute) that address time limits to claims that arise after the decedent’s death.

MCL 700.3803(2) says that such claims must be filed within 4 months, but MCL 700.3803(3)(c) says that time limit does not apply to:

(c) Collection of compensation for services rendered and reimbursement of expenses advanced by the personal representative or by an attorney, auditor, investment adviser, or other specialized agent or assistant for the personal representative of the estate.

What this case holds is that the term “the personal representative” as used in MCL 700.3803(3)(c) does not include a former personal representative, and therefore a former personal representative has four months from the date of their removal or resignation to file a claim for services. This statutory construction would then impose the same time limit on claims from professionals, including lawyers, who did work for the former PR.

This case should probably be published since it appears to be an issue of first impression and relies on no prior authority for this interpretation of the law. The COA’s interpretation seems to present a malpractice trap for lawyers who have clients who resign or are removed as PR and who take more than four months to file a claim  for their client’s fees.  The law as construed in this case also would present a time bar for lawyers who represent clients who resign or are removed and PR, and who do not file a claim for their own fees within the four month window.

In any event, it has been a while since I have seen my old friend Tom Trainer who acted as successor PR in this matter, and who prevailed as Appellee in this case. Nice to know Tom is still out there stirring things up.

PR Appointment for Estate with No Assets

Here’s a case that’s worth filing away for those who do probate litigation and estate administration. It’s unpublished, but addresses an issue that comes up not infrequently.  The holding is that a probate court cannot deny a petition to appoint a personal representative on the grounds that the estate has no assets.

In In Re Estate of Janet Kapp (click on name to read case), the trial court denied a petition to appoint a personal representative on the grounds that there were no known assets to be administered. The COA reversed and remanded, holding that there is no basis in EPIC to support the trial court’s decision.  The COA says:

Instead, the court concluded that the appointment of a personal representative was unnecessary because there were no assets in the estate to probate.  In doing so, however, the probate court did not cite statutory authority that allows a court to deny the appointment of a nominated personal representative on those grounds.  To the contrary, a court rule provides that personal representatives do not need to provide notice to creditors when “[t]he estate has no assets[.]” MCR 5.208(D)(3)(a). It follows that personal representatives can be appointed even when the estate has no assets.

There are many reasons to open an estate which have nothing to do with distribution of assets. This is a good decision, and although unpublished, should provide an outline for the argument when attorneys are faced with this misunderstanding in their cases.

Policy Tweaks Scare Medicaid Geeks

When it comes to Medicaid planning, truly the devil is in the details; and the “details” are found in the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) policy manuals, most often the Bridges Eligibility Manual (the “BEM”). MDHHS has announced several language revisions to a variety of BEM items, all taking effect October 1.  Folks that have been in this game long enough know that such revisions often mean mischief and that, especially during this haunted season, odds are high that there will be more tricks than treats in this bag of goodies.

Waiver Rewrite (BEM 106)

The Medicaid Waiver program (aka “the MI Choice Program”) allows persons qualified for long term care Medicaid benefits to receive services in their homes. Waiver benefits have been around awhile now, but the way the eligibility rules apply to Waiver have remained uncertain.  As of October 1, the Waiver eligibility rules will be much better organized and laid out in much more detail in the new BEM 106.  That’s a treat.

Among the clarifications are the rules for how an initial asset assessment (the “IAA”) is triggered for Waiver applicants, and how a divestment penalty is triggered. These clarifications raise concerns.

The IAA is important because it provides the date which is used for a married person to calculate their protected spousal amount (aka “community spouse resource allowance”). For traditional Medicaid long term care programs, the IAA is triggered when someone enters the hospital or a long term care facility for at least 30 days.  Now, for Waiver applicants, the IAA can also be triggered when the Medicaid applicant has begun:

Receiving appropriate home and community based services specified under the approved state waiver; see Exhibit I in this item. They do not have to receive these services from a waiver agent listed below, but the services must be received from a person or entity certified (or licensed) by the state to provide the services. See below for verification of services received.

So, it seems that a person can now trigger their own Medicaid Waiver IAA date by hiring in-home caregivers (or perhaps it will have to be nurses) that are licensed by the State. That seems to give people, and perhaps planners, more control over the IAA trigger date and may be a treat.  We’ll see.  Cautious optimism here.

Of greater concern in the new BEM 106 is the language that relates to the trigger for the divestment penalty and the way that intersects with the language defining “approved for waiver.” What is says is that the divestment penalty begins “on the date which all criteria listed under the approved for waiver section in this item has been confirmed.”  The “Approved for Waiver” section provides the following:

Approved for the waiver means:

  • The agent conducted the assessment, and
  • There is an available wavier slot for the individual’s placement and
  • A person-centered plan of service has been developed and
  • The participant received, or expects to receive, supports coordination services from the agent with appropriate waiver services for at least 30 consecutive days.

The agent determines the waiver approval date and termination date. The agent is responsible for advising the appropriate local Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) office of these dates. The agent is responsible for advising the appropriate local MDHHS office the dates of enrollment and disenrollment information in CHAMPS.

This seems to leave all control in the hands of the Waiver Agent, and will also depend on slot availability. This will make divestment planning strategies for Waiver clients much less predictable.  Definitely room for mischief here. Call this a trick.

Assets (BEM 400)

As of October 1, the language in BEM 400 that allows real estate to be considered unavailable during periods in which the property is listed for sale has been tweaked in three respects.

First, the policy has been modified by the addition of the following sentence: “If after a length of time has passed without a sale, the sale price may need to be evaluated against the definition of fair market value.”

Second, it now says “The asset becomes countable when a reasonable offer is received.”

Third, the non-salable exemption will not be applied to the initial asset assessment (IAA).

While none of these changes seem particularly egregious, one always wonders why DHHS would go through the trouble to include them if there isn’t some hidden agenda. But then maybe I’ve become too cynical.

The October 1 changes to BEM 400 also include beefed up language to clarify that assets remains an available resources during periods in which the applicant is waiting for a conservator (or guardian) to be appointed. So even though you may have no power of attorney or other legal ability to spend down or otherwise qualify for Medicaid, the fact that the assets exist is all that matters.  The cost of the delay of obtaining court authority falls on the applicant.  That has always been the rule. So, again, one is curious about the need for these clarifications.

Divestment (BEM 405)

BEM 405 now includes an eerily vague and portentous provision that says: “purchasing an asset which decreases the group’s net worth and is not in the group’s financial interest” is a transfer of assets, and apparently also per se “divestment.” Definitely an invitation to mischief and definitely a trick.

Divestment policy will now define “putting assets or income into a Limited Liability Company (LLC)” as a transfer of assets which presumably means it can be analyzed as possible divestment. A trick.

BEM 405 policy has been clarified to address situations where past divestment activity is subsequently discovered and reported. The new language provides that the penalty period starts on the “first day after timely notice is given.”  Maybe not a treat, but I’m ok with this.

Conclusion

There are other tweaks to the aforementioned BEMs and tweaks to other BEMs not discussed above, but these seem to me the most curious. To read the entire bulletin with links to the policy, click here.  Happy Halloween.