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If you are a lawyer who handles probate estate administration, you will want to take note of this unpublished Court of Appeals opinion.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.

Read More

Unpublished Decision Demonstrates Difficulties Inherent in Setting Aside Settlements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.

 

Read More

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.

Read More

Phone App “document” is a Valid Will in Michigan

It happened and it’s published.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held, in a published decision, that a paragraph posted by a decedent on his phone is a valid will under Michigan law, and specifically, MCL 700.2503.

We’ve discussed Michigan’s uniquely liberal law regarding instruments intended to be wills before. See, for instance, Section 2503 Grows Up (click on name).

In this case, Duane Horton wrote a note in his journal stating that his testamentary wishes could be found on his phone app. They looked and they found it.  The trial court admitted the electronic expression as the decedent’s will under MCL 700.2503. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Click here to read In re Estate of Duane Francis Horton, II

It’s an important case as it further fleshes out the impact of Michigan’s cutting edge law.

First, it dismisses the number one misconception about Section 2503, which is that it is intended only to fix “minor, technical deficiencies” in documents that would otherwise be admissible as holographic wills or otherwise. The COA holds that the statute doesn’t say that, and doesn’t mean that.  Rather Section 2503 is a stand alone, separate process for admitting testamentary expressions which does not require any formality, only clear and convincing evidence of intent.

Equally important, the case stands for the proposition that an electronic document is a “document” for the purposes of this statute.

These are powerful developments in probate law, and, for better or worse, Michigan seems to be on the cutting edge. Fun issues, fun times.

 

Read More

MSC Fixes Brody Trust

UPDATE:  The Court of Appeals issued a new opinion on August 7, 2018.  The blog post on that opinion can be read by clicking here.

As previously discussed on this blogsite, the problem with this Rhea Brody Trust case is that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the standing provisions of the Michigan Trust Code in concluding that a child/beneficiary of the settlor has standing to initiate a trust proceeding while the parent/settlor is alive. [See Remainder Beneficiary of Revocable Trust has Standing to Sue Trustee for Breach]. Besides being wrong, the COA’s conclusion was unnecessary because under the facts of this case (including the fact that the settlor was incompetent), the offended party had standing under the Michigan Trust Code.

As with the Brody conservatorship case, the COA decision was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court and an amicus brief was filed by the Probate Section of the State Bar. As with the Brody conservatorship matter, the MSC received the amicus brief, fixed the problem, and then denied leave as no longer necessary.  However, in this matter, the MSC actually ordered part of the COA’s decision vacated and remanded the matter to the COA to correct their analysis.  So presumably there will be another, more enlightened, COA decision forthcoming.

Click here to read the MSC Order.

Read More

Beneficial Interest in Trust Enough for PRE

In this published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals goes to great lengths to conclude that a person who lives in a house that is owned by an irrevocable trust, which trust provides this person with a right of occupancy, is an “owner” of the house for the purposes of qualifying for the personal residence exclusion with respect to their property taxes.

Click here to read Breakey v Department of Treasury.

 

Read More

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.

Read More

Better Than Nothing?

The Michigan Supreme Court has issued an Order denying leave in In Re Conservatorship of Rhea Brody.  However, this same Order “further notes” that the Opinion of the Court of Appeals which was the subject of the request for leave was reformed after the briefs in the case were filed.

Click here to read the Supreme Court Order.

So, a published COA decision is issued. Leave to the MSC is sought.  Briefs are filed, and then the COA revises its opinion so that MSC is satisfied that there is no reason to hear the case. How about that?

I first wrote about this Brody case (there were two of them, a trust case and this conservatorship matter) in the post: Another Brody Bombshell (click on name to visit that post). As discussed at that time, the opinion was riddled with bad law.  As mentioned in another post (Storm Clouds), our firm was hired by the Probate Section of the State Bar to prepare the amicus brief in this matter, which we did.*

The Probate Section wanted only two issues raised:

  1. The finding that the priority given to a “conservator, guardian, or similar fiduciary recognized by the appropriate court of another jurisdiction” could mean an independent trustee over a trust agreement of which the ward was settlor, which trustee was appointed by the same court hearing the conservatorship matter; and
  2. The statement of the Court of Appeals that the statutory priorities for appointment of a conservator “are merely a guide for the probate court’s exercise of discretion.”

I personally also found the case to be worthy of reversal or remand on a third point, which was that the Court appointed a conservator even where a power of attorney was in place and appeared to be effectively handling the affairs of the ward.

The Order of the MSC informs us that the COA has remedied issue number 1 above by issuing a revised opinion.

The second issue is not addressed, and therefore remains problematic language in this published opinion. Presumably we can now argue that appointment of conservators are not controlled by statutory priorities, but are rather left to the discretion of the trial court.

The third issue likewise remains unresolved, and therefore this case seems to stand in opposition to other cases, such as In Re Bittner.

Click here to read the COA Brody opinion as revised.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

*[Much thanks to CT Attorney Drummond Black for his excellent work on the amicus brief.]

Read More

The Fix Is In

In the process of probate administration, there are certain “allowances” that are paid “off the top” before creditors and beneficiaries get what they have coming.   Among those is the exempt property allowance.  The exempt property allowance is currently $15,000.  It goes to the surviving spouse, but if there is no spouse surviving, it is divided among the surviving children.  Since 2000, it has gone to adult surviving children as well as minor children.

In 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in the case of In Re Estate of Shelby Jean Jajuga (click on the name to read the case). Ms. Jajuga died leaving a will and one surviving child.  The will did not leave anything to the child, and expressly stated that the child should “inherit nothing.”  Notwithstanding this expression, the child made a claim for the exempt property allowance and it was granted.  The Court of Appeals concluded that this was ok, and affirmed what I think most practicing probate lawyers believed the law to be, which is that the child gets the allowance regardless of what the will says.

That result did not sit well with some people, and so legislation was introduced to change the outcome. That legislation recently became law.  Specifically, the change is in the language of MCL 700.2404(4).  Click on the statute to read it.

Because the outcome of Jajuga neither surprised nor offended me, I am not a fan of the fix. But as far as fixes go, I think this one is better than it might have been.  Notably, the way the change is written, it does not eliminate the exemption for children, nor limit it to minor children; but rather the exemption remains as it existed, but can be barred by language in a will expressly cutting out the child or children or by simply eliminating their right to an allowance.

Two observations:

When planning for small estates, lawyers may want to disable the exemption so that the exempt property allowance to a child or children does not significantly alter the resulting distribution where non-children (including descendants of deceased children) are takers. Of course this can perhaps be better addressed by simply defining beneficial interests to include an offset for any allowance received.  The risk of routinely disabling this allowance in wills is that in very small or insolvent estates, doing so would elevate creditors above children.

My second point relates to Medicaid estate recovery. In cases where assets mistakenly end up in probate for a decedent who received long term care Medicaid benefits, the exempt property allowance comes before the State of Michigan gets repaid for their estate recovery claim.  The way the fix is written, this remains true.  This will allow children in these cases to continue to have good reason to open the estate, and place them in a better bargaining position with the State with respect to settling estate recovery claims.

Read More

Practice Alert: Homeowner’s Coverage Doesn’t Extend to Trust

Floyd lived in a house owned by Floyd’s revocable trust. But the homeowner’s insurance policy was issued to Floyd individually.  After Floyd died, a family member was in the house removing personal property and was injured.  That injured person sued the Trust and was awarded $100,000.  Trustee submitted the award to the insurance company for payment, and the insurance company denied coverage, saying that no one told them that Floyd had died, and their policy was with Floyd, not the Trust.

The trial court noted that the insurance company had collected premiums for the period at issue, and said they were estopped from denying coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed, arriving at the conclusion:

The Trust was not an insured under a policy issued by Fremont. Fremont therefore was not obligated to provide coverage to the Trust for plaintiffs’ judgment and Fremont was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiffs’ claims.

With respect to the insurance premiums which were collected for the period after Floyd’s death, the COA seems to say that to the extent the acceptance of premiums created any contractual obligations, it would have been a contract with the estate, but the estate is not the trust.

To read Thompson v Fremont Insurance Co., click on the name. The case is unpublished.

The result seems harsh, but assuming it accurately states the law, this case serves as a warning that clients (and perhaps lawyers) need to let the homeowner’s insurance company know when they have placed their house in trust. Something to add to the checklist perhaps.

Read More