If you are a lawyer who handles probate estate administration, you will want to take note of this unpublished Court of Appeals opinion.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.
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.
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 It’s unpublished, but addresses an issue that comes up not infrequently.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.
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.