Background
BJ suffered a traumatic brain injury in a 2011 motor-vehicle accident and required round-the-clock care. His sister initially served as his guardian, conservator, and later trustee of a special needs trust. After she developed dementia, BJ’s biological daughter and primary caregiver, Taisha Johnson, was appointed guardian in March 2025. Teri A. Jordan was subsequently appointed special fiduciary in the trust case.
Jordan petitioned for instructions concerning alleged financial irregularities, BJ’s caregiving arrangements, room-and-board expenses, and a potential conflict arising from Taisha’s roles as both guardian and paid caregiver. At a hearing noticed only for that petition in the trust case, the probate court sua sponte suspended Taisha, appointed Siporin & Associates as temporary guardian, and directed an investigation. The court left BJ in his existing home and set a full hearing approximately seven weeks later. Five business days afterward, it stayed the suspension order and reinstated Taisha pending further order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the record did not support the findings required by MCL 700.5312(2): that Taisha was not effectively performing her duties and that BJ’s welfare required immediate action. Taisha had continued providing care despite inconsistent payment, reported problems affecting BJ, and worked with the special fiduciary and special conservator. The probate court’s decision to maintain BJ’s living arrangement, order an investigation, and delay the next hearing also undermined its finding that immediate intervention was necessary.
Reversal was independently required because the probate court suspended Taisha and appointed a temporary guardian through an order entered in the trust case rather than the separate guardianship case. That procedure created due-process problems because the hearing notice concerned only the trust petition and the interested persons entitled to notice in the guardianship proceeding could differ from those in the trust case. The court directed that future issues concerning BJ’s guardianship be heard in the guardianship case so the proper parties receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Key Takeaways
- A temporary guardian may be appointed under MCL 700.5312(2) only when the existing guardian is not effectively performing and the ward’s welfare requires immediate action.
- Concerns warranting investigation do not, without supporting findings and evidence, necessarily justify immediate suspension of a guardian.
- A probate court must address guardianship relief in the guardianship case, with notice to the interested persons applicable to that proceeding, rather than through a related trust case.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that probate courts must observe both EPIC’s substantive requirements and case-specific procedural safeguards when changing control over an incapacitated person’s care. Even when trust and guardianship matters involve the same individual and overlapping facts, their separate proceedings cannot be treated as interchangeable where doing so may deprive interested parties of notice and a meaningful opportunity to participate.