in Re Conservatorship of Mary Louise Montgomery
332507
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- In 2013 Marian petitioned to be conservator for her mother Mary, who was elderly and showing dementia; Marian and sibling LaJune were initially appointed co-conservators/guardians.
- Sibling Rita Hicks later petitioned to modify/remove Marian, alleging poor budgeting for food, removal of Mary’s clothing, use of Mary’s assets to insure a vehicle, and lack of family communication; a public administrator (Jennifer Carney) was appointed temporary conservator.
- Hearings occurred July 2, 2015 and March 22, 2016; testimony revealed ongoing intense conflict among siblings, some physical confrontations by Marian, and that Mary required 24-hour professional supervision and was doing well in an assisted-living facility.
- Marian admitted confrontational interactions and some physical incidents; she also acknowledged insuring a vehicle she used for Mary’s benefit and that she only partially reimbursed Mary for the increased premium.
- The probate court concluded by bench ruling that Mary still needed a conservator and that all of Mary’s children were unsuitable because emotional ties and family conflict prevented them from acting in Mary’s best interests; it retained the public administrator as conservator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rita) | Defendant's Argument (Marian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court abused its discretion removing Marian as conservator | Probate court properly removed Marian because she failed to act in Mary’s best interest and family conflict warranted a neutral public administrator | Removal required a finding of mismanagement or failure to perform duties; mere conflict/character issues insufficient | Court affirmed: removal was within discretion because Marian’s emotional ties and conduct prevented acting in Mary’s best interest (good cause) |
| What constitutes “good cause” to remove a conservator | Good cause includes inability to act in ward’s best interest and substantive reasons beyond formal mismanagement | Marian argued statute requires mismanagement or duty breach | Court: “good cause” is broad — a legally sufficient reason; inability to act in ward’s best interest qualifies |
| Whether sibling conflict alone can justify removal | Conflict among children supported finding children unsuitable and retention of public administrator | Marian argued ongoing conflict alone cannot justify removal | Court declined to base decision solely on conflict but upheld removal on primary ground of Marian’s inability to put mother’s interests first; did not decide whether conflict alone suffices |
| Admissibility and prejudicial effect of evidence about Marian’s past (divorce, bankruptcy, contempt) | Rita’s counsel used background to establish credibility and context of contempt incarceration | Marian argued these remote events were irrelevant and prejudicial | Court: some admission was an abuse of discretion but any error was harmless because decision didn’t rely on that evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Conservatorship of Bittner, 312 Mich. App. 227 (appellate standard for reviewing fiduciary appointment/removal)
- In re Conservatorship of Townsend, 293 Mich. App. 182 (standard for clear-error review of probate factual findings)
- Consumers Power Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 235 Mich. App. 380 (use of dictionary/interpretive aids when statute does not define a term)
- People v. Buie, 491 Mich. 294 (definition of “good cause” as satisfactory, sound, or valid reason)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich. 1 (definition of “good cause” as legally sufficient or substantial reason)