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  A new unpublished opinion discusses that question, and while I think the opinion falls short in some respects, the issue comes up routinely in contested guardianship and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.

Unpublished Decision Demonstrates Difficulties Inherent in Setting Aside Settlements

The process by which this issue arises is somewhat confusing, but basically the facts are that:

Parent has two children. Original trust leaves residue to his children 50-50; and if either child predeceases, the share of predeceased child goes to the descendants of the deceased child.

One child dies and then the parent becomes demented, subject to guardianship and conservatorship. Conservator petitions the trial court for instruction on the validity of a trust amendment which may or may not have been signed. No signed copy is found. The purported amendment was made after the death of the child, and if valid, would leave the entire residue to the surviving child and nothing to the descendants of the deceased child.

Matter is mediated and the surviving child and descendants of the deceased child reach an agreement regarding the division of the residue, which agreement is approved by the trial court.

Subsequently, the child who would have received everything under the purported trust amendment announces that he has found the signed amendment, and seeks to set aside the order approving the settlement pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1).

The trial court denies the motion to set aside the order, and the Court of Appeals affirms.

In Re Frank M. Lambrecht, Jr. Trust (click on name to read the case) is unpublished, but I think it does a reasonably good job looking at what it takes to set aside a settlement agreement, and probably gets the right result in what is no doubt a very close case.

There are several grounds on which the agreement (or more accurately, the court order adopting the agreement) is challenged, all of which come under MCR 2.612(C)(1).

MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a) – Mutual Mistake.  Court of Appeals holds that while it may well have been a mutual mistake of a material fact that no signed amendment existed, the parties all knew that it was possible that one might subsequently be found, and that possibility was presumably factored into the value they placed on the case when they settled.  So, unlike some other types of orders, an order approving a settlement agreement has already factored in the possibility of this type of mistake = no relief here.

MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b) – After Discovered Material Evidence.  The Court of Appeals says that the child challenging the settlement agreement is correct that the discovery of the signed amendment would meet most of the requirements necessary to obtain relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(b), but on these facts this contesting child fails to meet the burden of showing that it could not have been found with “reasonable diligence.”   The child seeking relief says the signed amendment was found in his parent’s desk drawer, but that he chose not to look there while his parent was alive, out of respect for that parent’s privacy.  Basically, his deference on this point may have been admirable but does not obviate his obligation to use due diligence.  There is no question he had access, and presumably the desk drawer would have been an obvious place to look.  So that won’t work.

MCR 2.612(C)(1)(e) and (f) – No Longer Equitable and Other Grounds for Relief.  The Court of Appeals notes that the settlement was not solely based on the fact that a signed amendment was missing. Rather, the settlement negotiations included other issues, including whether, even if the signed amendment were found, the amendment would be set aside for lack of capacity or undue influence.  In light of the other variables in play during the settlement process, it could not be said that the resulting agreement is no longer fair.

Conclusion. This case neatly presents the issue of how and why an order approving a settlement agreement is different from other types of court orders when it comes to seeking relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1); and neatly applies the law to facts that make the decision a close call on several grounds.

 

Terror Clause Canaries Don’t Fly

In this unpublished decision from the Court of Appeals, a potential litigant filed a “petition for instruction” which asked the trial judge to decide the question of: If a subsequent petition to modify the trust were filed, whether such a petition would be deemed to violate the trust’s terror clause and thereby cause petitioner to forfeit her interest in the trust?

Click here to read: In Re Robert E. Whitton Revocable Trust

Curiously, a trial judge saw fit to issue such an opinion. In this case, the trial court determined that the petition for instruction did not itself violate the terror clause, but that a subsequent petition to modify the trust would violate the clause and that the petitioner had no probable cause to bring that petition.

A terror clause (aka “no contest clause”) is a provision in a will or trust that says a beneficiary will be penalized (typically the penalty is to lose their interest in the estate) if they contest the will or trust at issue.

Michigan law on terror clauses is pretty straightforward and is spelled out in MCL 700.7113 (for trusts) an in MCL 700.2518 and 700.3905 (for wills). (click on the statutes to read them). They are generally enforceable, but will not be enforced in cases where the party had “probable cause” to initiate the proceeding.

Litigants, like the one in this case, have long attempted is to come up with a way of having a court determine whether they will be penalized if they bring an action before actually doing so. They want to know in advance whether they will be deemed to have triggered the terror clause if they file a petition being contemplated.  These efforts don’t work.  Several years ago, the Court of Appeals issued a published decision in a case handled by our firm in which it declared that trial courts lack authority to rule on such speculative matters for the reasons that the issue is non-justiciable (not ripe, as it were).  Click here to read that prior post.  Basically, the appellate courts have said that if you want to contest a document, you have to take your chances.  So, it’s no surprise that the Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide this case, and vacated that part of the trial court’s decision.  And it’s curious that, in light of the clear law on this point, the trial judge in this matter thought that such an action could be decided.

This case also offers the opportunity to discuss another, perhaps dicier, aspect of our terror clause statutes, which is that the imposition of a penalty is not necessarily limited to proceedings in which the validity of document at issue is being contested. Rather these statutes indicate that a terror clause can be written to impose a penalty for initiating any type of proceeding relating to the trust or will.  So, in this case, the anticipated subsequent petition was being framed as a “petition to modify” a trust to conform with an amendment that the settlor had purportedly had drafted, but never got around to signing.  The appellants in this case were hoping to escape the imposition of the terror clause penalty on the idea that the subsequent petition they were considering wouldn’t actually (per their argument) contest the validity of the trust, but would only inquire as to the validity of an unsigned amendment.  Likewise the respondents in this matter argued that the act of bringing a petition for instruction was itself a violation of the terror clause.  The point of all this is that Michigan law allows for very broad terror clause provisions, including, presumably, a provision that would penalize a litigant for bringing a petition for instruction, or that says a petition seeking to recognize an unsigned amendment is a violation. The opinion in this case indicates only that the terror clause in this trust was “lengthy.”  It is not clear what the scope of this lengthy terror clause is, but it is seems possible at least that a terror clause could have been written which would have been unambiguous on these specific issues.

So, the points here are that (1) There are no terror clause canaries – no free bites at the apple. When a terror clause is in play, you take your chances.  And (2) A terror clause may be written to impose a penalty for initiating any form of proceeding which relates to the will or trust at issue.  The scope of the terror clause itself is significant in deciding how to proceed in cases where these provisions are in play.

COA on Brody Trust Remand: We Were Both Right

In what should be the last chapter in the Rhea Brody Trust saga, the Court of Appeals has released its decision resulting from a Michigan Supreme Court Order remanding the case to the COA.  As previously discussed here, confusion was created by the first Brody Trust decision (“Brody I”) regarding whether a child/beneficiary has standing to initiate litigation involving a parent’s revocable trust regardless of whether the parent/settlor is still competent.

To read the new Brody case, click here.

To read prior posts on this case, click here and here.

In Brody Trust I, the COA held that a child who is a beneficiary of a revocable trust may have standing to initiate litigation regarding the administration of a revocable trust, regardless of whether the parent/settlor is competent. The COA relied upon the definition of an “interested person” as set forth in MCL 700.1105(c).  That decision shocked the probate community, and caused the probate section of the state bar to file an amicus brief asking the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse that holding.  [The probate section did not ask for a reversal of the outcome of Brody I, because based on the facts of the case, and specifically the fact that the settlor was in fact incompetent, and the trustee was also the settlor’s agent under a power of attorney, standing would exist under MCL 700.7603(2).]  Click on the statute to read those laws.

The MSC accepted briefs on appeal, but rather than hear and decide the case, the MSC simply vacated controversial portions of Brody I and remanded it to the COA for a new and improved opinion.

Now, the new opinion (“Brody II”) has been issued.  In it, the COA acknowledges that the probate section was correct in asserting that MCL 700.7603(2) would apply in this case and that the application of that statute would provide standing to the petitioner/child/beneficiary. But – and it’s kind of a big but – they say that they were not wrong in their application of MCL 700.1105(c).

Litigators Rejoice?

Brody II is published, so it is the law. What this means, it seems, is that under MCL 700.1105(c), depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, a probate court could find that a child or beneficiary of a revocable trust might have standing to initiate litigation regarding the administration of a revocable trust even where the settlor remains competent and could amend the trust and cut out complaining child/beneficiary.  Is this a boon for litigators?  Possibly, but I think probably not.  Probate courts have discretion under the second sentence of 700.1105(c) to determine who would be an interested person in any particular proceeding, and that decision is based on the “particular purposes of, and matter involved in” the litigation.  Presumably, it would be a rare set of circumstances where a trial court would want to exercise their discretion to allow litigation by an aggrieved child or beneficiary in cases where the settlor can speak for themselves.  Presumably also, competent settlors who are offended by having their children and/or other beneficiaries initiate litigation, will in fact amend their documents and resolve the issue that way.

Conclusion

So, the COA missed the obvious way to resolve this case in Brody I, and they acknowledge that Brody II. But they don’t just leave it at that.  By taking the “we were both right” approach, they allow for the possibility of future litigation initiated by children or beneficiaries of revocable trusts while the settlor is competent.

State Supremes Issue Split Decision on Mardigian

Relish the moment because this is as exciting as probate law gets.

We’ve written about the case before (See: This is Awkward).  Attorney prepares an estate plan (will and trust) for non-relative, leaving millions to said attorney and attorney’s family.

Trial court says: An attorney can’t do that under the rules of professional conduct, and therefore the estate plan is void – on summary disposition.

Court of Appeals reverses the trial court. COA says: While the lawyer may face discipline for the ethics violation, the validity of the trust is not implicated by the ethics rule.  That decision was 2 to 1.

Now, the Michigan Supreme Court reviews the Court of Appeals, and it’s a 3 to 3 tie [The 7th Justice abstains because he was on the COA panel that decided it – and was one of the two votes on the prevailing side.]  Apparently a tie means the COA decision is affirmed.

So the issue is whether a violation of the MRPC rule 1.8(c) (which precludes an attorney from creating estate plans for non-relatives in which they receive a substantial benefit) has any role in a trial contesting the validity of the estate plan? The answer is “no, it does not.”  While everyone agrees that the attorney is a fiduciary and that, as such, the presumption of undue influence is in play, the prevailing opinion is that the ethics violation, in and of itself, is not a factor in the case.

It’s a Long Decision

As indicated, there are two opinions, each with 3 signatories. In all it’s 53 pages long.  Click here to read the case.

The three who vote to affirm the COA ultimately conclude that it’s not their role to change the law of undue influence to enforce ethical obligations of the bar. The other three see this as an opportunity to do just that.  Their approach would be to treat a violation of the ethics rule as giving rise to an per se finding of undue influence.  They assert that the law needs to catch up with changes that have taken place since the last time the MSC reviewed this question more than 50 years ago, which changes included the adoption of MRPC 1.8(c).

Each opinion includes a lengthy discussion of undue influence and the presumption. It at least attempts to clarify some of the confusion that exists about the presumption and particularly about how it is rebutted.  This case will no doubt be quoted in litigation going forward.  So if you do this kind of work, you need to read this case.

They’re Making My Point

The Supremes don’t know it, and likely won’t revisit this issue in my lifetime, but their decision demonstrates the point I was trying to make in my recent post: The Imperfect Bandage of Undue Influence (click on name to read it).  My point is that:  Undue influence isn’t cutting it.

In both opinions, but especially the opinion of the non-prevailing Justices, the Justices seem uncomfortable with how difficult it is to prove undue influence and how easy it is for the presumption to be rebutted. For me though, their distress is too narrowly focused.  Even the side that would change the law to prevent this result in this case, would only do so in situations where a lawyer is involved.  From my perspective, it is just as suspicious when a benefiting child or housekeeper prepares the will, deed, beneficiary designation, etc..

So, in conclusion, the MSC has spoken. It’s a long opinion and long awaited by many in the probate community.  The facts of the case and the evenly divided court add a dash of drama.  Required reading for probate geeks.

COA Sets the Record Straight on Priorities

This new published Court of Appeals opinion shouldn’t surprise anyone. The COA holds that where a professional guardian/conservator resigns, and the only adult child of the ward petitions to be appointed guardian and conservator, the probate court cannot appoint a new professional guardian and conservator unless it makes a finding that the child is unsuitable.  That’s because the child has priority to be appointed.  The fact that the probate judge by-passed the child and appointed a new professional fiduciary without such evidence was reversible error.

Click here to read In Re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Harold William Gerstler.

The facts are kind of fun: a devious Aunt, a lazy guardian ad litem; but in the end the COA simply reads the statutes regarding priority of appointments and applies them to the facts.

The only thing curious about this case is that it is published. But perhaps the timing of this publication tells us something.  Perhaps, just maybe, the COA is trying to clean up the confusion left from the recently published (and revised and republished) Brody case which said that the statutory priorities were “merely a guide for the probate court’s exercise of discretion.”  [Check out the post “Better Than Nothing?” for a discussion of that case.]

Significantly, the Gerstler opinion also adopts the position that the standard of proof necessary to by-pass a person with priority is as stated in the Redd case: a preponderance. [Click here to read “Seeing Redd”.]

So, when the issue of appointment of either a guardian or conservator is in play, a party with priority is entitled to appointment unless it is shown by a preponderance of evidence that they are not suitable. That means a probate court has to have a hearing and consider evidence to make this decision. I, for one, am glad that’s clear.

Medicaid Planners Get Rare Win from COA

The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued an opinion regarding the appropriateness of using probate court protective orders to obtain spousal support orders in situations where such orders impact the calculation of a nursing home resident’s Medicaid “patient pay amount.” The outcome is 80% good for planners, and as such is a refreshing break from the series of punishing COA opinions that have been issued in recent years with respect to Medicaid planning cases.

The case is published, lengthy and involved. Click here to read the combined cases of In Re Joseph VanSach Jr., and In Re Jerome R. Bockes.

For the uninitiated, a “patient pay amount” is the portion of a person’s income that is required to be paid to toward their care when they are in a nursing home receiving long term care Medicaid benefits. The exact amount is a function of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) policy, which provides a formula for calculating the patient pay amount.  When the nursing home Medicaid beneficiary is married, that formula allows for diversion of income to the “community spouse.” DHHS policy also provides that where a court order directs payment from the nursing home resident to the community spouse, that court order supersedes the formula for determining the amount of income diverted.

In both of the cases before the COA, the local probate court ordered that 100% of the income of the nursing home resident would be paid to the community spouse for their support. These two decisions were appealed by DHHS, represented by the Michigan Attorney General, and the two cases were combined by the Court of Appeals.

The main argument of DHHS was that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to hear these cases. That argument was made on several grounds, all of which failed.  In this decision, the COA holds that probate courts have the authority to grant these orders and that in doing so those courts are not engaged in making DHHS eligibility determinations even though the clear purpose of obtaining such orders may be for that reason.  That’s a big win for the planners.

The COA also holds that the fact that these individuals may have had power of attorneys in place at the time of the petition does not preclude the probate court from getting involved. The COA reasons that the specific form of relief desired (a court order of support) would not be something that an agent acting under a POA could provide, and therefore the court does have jurisdiction to hear these matters.  This holding has potential applications beyond Medicaid planning matters.

After dismissing the primary jurisdictional challenge, the COA ventures into a discussion about how a probate court should decide these cases. The COA holds that in the two cases giving rise to the appeal, the probate courts erred in awarding 100% of the nursing home resident’s income to the community spouse, and vacates both orders and remands the cases.

The COA instructs Michigan’s probate courts that the burden is on the party seeking the order of support to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the community spouse “needs” the additional income, that it is more than a “want,” and that in deciding whether or how much to award, the probate judge must consider the interests of the institutionalized Medicaid beneficiary and their obligation to contribute toward the costs of their own care. The discussion of this process goes on for several paragraphs, and includes several lengthy footnotes, using, at times, vague and clouded statements to explain how this balance should be struck.  In the end, the opinion seems to intentionally avoid the obvious conclusion that the institutionalized spouse has no real interest in paying anything more than they have to toward their care, as their care remains the same notwithstanding, and that in almost every case the interest of institutionalized spouse would be to divert as much income to support their spouse as possible.  The COA seems to want to direct the probate judge to consider public policy and the interest of the DHHS in making its decision – but they never say that – presumably because there would be not legal basis for doing so.

Importantly, the COA rejects the standard requested by DHHS of “exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress.” But in the same footnote discussion, the COA goes on to say:

… as a matter of common sense, when an incapacitated person needs to be institutionalized to receive full-time medical care, it would be an unusual case for a community spouse’s circumstances to trump the institutionalized spouse’s need for use of his income to pay his medical expenses, particularly when the community spouse has the benefit of the CSMIA. In other words, an institutionalized spouse’s receipt of Medicaid, and a community spouse’s protection under the spousal impoverishment provisions, generally weighs against the entry of a support order.

The result of this case will require more effort in bringing these matters to probate courts in the future. Practitioners will want to establish a record that the probate judge can rely upon to conclude that the burden has been met.  As evidenced by the orders vacated in this appeal, a judge simply concluding that the request was “reasonable” is not good enough.

We should also recognize that while this case is about protective orders used to establish income diversion orders to benefit the community spouse, many of the same rules and standards would presumably apply to the other common use of protective orders in Medicaid planning: orders to establish a protected spousal amount.

In the end, these important planning tools (probate court protective orders) survived the COA and planners should celebrate this decision. It isn’t perfect, but in light of the COA’s prior decisions in this arena, it’s a lot more than might have been expected.

Representing the interests of the elder law bar (as appellees) in these two matters were two renowned elder law practitioners: CT’s own David Shaltz, and my friend and colleague Don Rosenberg.