in Re Conservatorship of William Daniel Jacob, 329390

Petitioner (sister) sought appointment of a conservator for her brother, William Jacob, alleging chronic drug and alcohol use led him to be unable to manage his property and finances.
Probate court initially appointed a temporary conservator; an evidentiary hearing followed.
Respondent earns about $160,000–$180,000 annually from family business distributions but moved to Las Vegas in 2012.
Respondent’s brokerage account held approximately $248,000 (described in record alternatively as $268,000) in 2012 and was depleted to zero by the end of 2014; respondent could not account for the depletion and refused to say how much was spent on drugs.
Record included admissions of illicit drug use, prior rehab treatment, multiple probation violations from failed drug tests, two DUI convictions, and prior PPOs from former girlfriends.
The probate court appointed Jennifer Kelly as permanent conservator over respondent’s estate; respondent appealed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported appointment of a conservator under MCL 700.5401(3)(a),(b)	Petitioner argued respondent’s chronic drug use and history of dissipating large sums showed inability to manage affairs and risk of wasting assets.	Respondent argued drug use or cognitive impairment alone is insufficient and past waste does not legally establish inability to manage finances.	Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence showed chronic drug use caused inability to manage affairs and risk of dissipation of assets, permitting conservator appointment.
Whether the same underlying condition (drug use) can satisfy both inability and waste elements	Petitioner argued the record supports using the same condition for both statutory elements when it bears on each.	Respondent argued the court improperly conflated the two statutory standards by relying on one condition for both findings.	Court held the statute permits the same underlying condition to support both elements and the record justified both findings.

In re Williams Estate, 133 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) (standard: abuse of discretion review for appointment/removal of fiduciary)
In re Townsend Conservatorship, 293 Mich. App. 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (probate court findings of fact reviewed for clear error; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
In re Martin, 450 Mich. 204 (Mich. 1995) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (Mich. 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Grimm v. Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich. App. 140 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (if statutory language is unambiguous, courts follow plain meaning)
Mt. Pleasant v. State Tax Comm., 477 Mich. 50 (Mich. 2007) (legislative intent and interpretation principles)