Background
Jonathan Samuels appeals multiple probate court orders removing him as conservator of his elderly parents, ELS and EJS, and as guardian of his father. The conflict arose from a bitter family dispute. In May 2021, Jonathan’s sister Emily petitioned for conservatorship and guardianship of both parents. The court initially appointed Emily as guardian of their mother and Jonathan as guardian and conservator of both parents. This arrangement resulted in the parents living separately during the proceedings.
In July 2022, the parents’ guardian ad litem petitioned to remove Jonathan as conservator, citing concerns about his failure to maintain their real property adequately, including their marital home and investment properties. In October 2022, Amy Kraydich was appointed as special fiduciary to manage the real estate. Kraydich reported that excessive clutter and personal possessions accumulated by Jonathan significantly hindered her efforts, as did his unwillingness to cooperate. In February 2023, the probate court removed Jonathan as conservator and appointed Kraydich as successor. Subsequently, Kraydich discovered that Jonathan had transferred $175,000 from his father’s Roth IRA to a jointly-owned account shortly before his removal, and the court ordered the transfer of these funds to Kraydich. The probate court also disallowed Jonathan’s accounts as conservator due to deficiencies and denied his claim for over $250,000 in alleged loans and reimbursements.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed all probate court orders. First, the court found that Jonathan’s challenges to his removal as conservator became moot upon his parents’ deaths during the appeal, as the guardianships and conservatorships automatically terminated. The court rejected Jonathan’s arguments that the issues remained justiciable as binding legal determinations or matters of public significance likely to recur. Additionally, the parents’ estates were being administered by appointed personal representatives pursuant to a stipulated agreement.
On the substantive claims, the court upheld the Roth IRA order under Michigan’s conservatorship statute (MCL 700.5407(3)), which permits probate courts to change beneficiary designations when in the protected individual’s best interests following notice and hearing. Here, the father indicated through counsel that he wanted his assets—including the Roth IRA—used for his wife’s benefit, and the court found the change served both parents’ interests. The court also found the transfer permissible as a remedy for Jonathan’s prohibited self-dealing as a fiduciary, as conservators must observe fiduciary duties and cannot personally profit from estate property transfers.
The court rejected Jonathan’s claims regarding false testimony, finding that the probate court properly weighed witness credibility—particularly regarding property condition—and such credibility determinations warrant substantial appellate deference. On his reimbursement claim, the court held that Jonathan failed to properly submit accounts and documentation to the court as statutorily required; his informal submission to other parties and the inadequate nature of those accounts justified denial. The court also clarified that MCR 5.203 procedures did not apply to a former conservator’s failure to file accounts; instead, the court’s disallowance was an appropriate response to statutory non-compliance.
Key Takeaways
- Conservators owe strict fiduciary duties, including an absolute prohibition on self-dealing and deriving personal profit from protected persons’ property.
- Probate courts have broad authority under MCL 700.5407(3) to modify beneficiary designations in insurance policies, annuities, and similar instruments when satisfied the change serves the protected person’s best interests.
- Probate courts may remove conservators for failure to cooperate with appointed fiduciaries and inadequate property maintenance, with trial court discretion given substantial deference.
- Former conservators bear the statutory obligation to submit complete, well-documented accounts to the court, not merely to other parties; failure to do so forecloses reimbursement claims.
- Trial court credibility findings receive broad appellate deference and are reversed only for clear error.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict fiduciary standards governing conservators and the probate court’s expansive authority to police conservator conduct, including authority to modify beneficiary designations when the protected person’s interests require it. The ruling confirms that conservators cannot use their position to divert estate assets to themselves and that courts will enforce statutory accounting requirements rigorously. For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of cooperating with successor fiduciaries and maintaining meticulous, court-filed documentation of any claimed reimbursements or loans to protected persons’ estates.
The decision also illustrates the probate court’s broad discretionary power to structure conservatorships and modify estate instruments based on the protected person’s expressed wishes and best interests, even when those wishes diverge from prior arrangements. The mootness holding regarding the parents’ deaths reflects practical realities of conservatorship disputes while preserving the court’s remedial authority over property transfers and fiduciary misconduct.