Background
HIH, an elderly woman diagnosed with dementia and diabetes, became the subject of a guardianship dispute among her adult children and grandchildren following the deteriorating health and eventual death of her husband WH. Kimberly Baker, one of HIH’s daughters, and Carlos Hamilton, a grandchild, petitioned the Wayne County Probate Court to appoint a guardian, alleging that HIH lacked the capacity to make informed decisions and that her other daughter, Jerroll Sanders — who held a durable power of attorney and patient advocate designation from HIH — was not acting in HIH’s best interests.
Family members testified that Sanders isolated HIH from other relatives, required police escorts for family visits, interfered with HIH’s medications, and worsened HIH’s dementia-related paranoia. The probate court also appointed an independent physician, Dr. Nicole Huby, to conduct a medical evaluation of HIH, but Sanders was uncooperative and prevented the examination from occurring. Sanders spoke on HIH’s behalf at every hearing; HIH herself never addressed the court.
After extensive evidentiary hearings, the probate court found HIH to be a legally incapacitated individual and, rather than appointing a family member as guardian given the severe intra-family acrimony, appointed Great Lakes Guardianship Services — a professional independent guardian — to oversee HIH’s care. Sanders appealed, raising challenges to notice, the sufficiency of evidence, the validity of the existing power of attorney, and the propriety of appointing an independent guardian without a formal amended petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all grounds. On the notice issue, the court held that Sanders and HIH waived any defect in notice by personally appearing at the June 6 and August 22, 2024 hearings, as permitted by MCL 700.5311(2). On the question of incapacity, the court upheld the probate court’s credibility determinations, noting that consistent family testimony about HIH’s dementia and Sanders’s own daily administration of HIH’s medications supported the finding of incapacity by clear and convincing evidence, and that Sanders’s failure to cooperate with the court-ordered independent medical examination prevented additional documentary evidence from being compiled.
On the power of attorney issue, the court confirmed that under MCL 700.5306(5) and MCL 700.5313(3), a probate court may override an existing patient advocate designation and appoint a different guardian when the designated advocate is not acting in the ward’s best interests or is otherwise unsuitable. The court found ample evidentiary support for the conclusion that Sanders was unsuitable — she isolated HIH from family, defied a court order for an independent examination, prevented the temporary guardian from meeting HIH, and did not take HIH to her husband’s funeral.
Finally, the court rejected Sanders’s argument that petitioners were required to file an amended petition before the court could appoint an independent guardian. The court clarified that it was the probate court — not the petitioners — that chose to appoint an independent guardian in response to the family’s entrenched conflict, and that no court rule required a new petition under these circumstances. Because Sanders did not raise this issue below, it was reviewed only for plain error, and none was found.
Key Takeaways
- Personal appearance at a guardianship hearing constitutes a waiver of notice under MCL 700.5311(2), even if formal service was defective.
- A probate court may appoint a professional independent guardian over a family member who holds a durable power of attorney or patient advocate designation when that designee is found unsuitable or not acting in the ward’s best interests, per MCL 700.5306(5) and MCL 700.5313(3).
- Sworn lay testimony from family members about a ward’s dementia and daily care needs can be sufficient to establish incapacity by clear and convincing evidence; formal medical documentation is not strictly required, especially when the respondent obstructs a court-ordered medical examination.
- A probate court may sua sponte appoint an independent guardian rather than a petitioning family member without requiring an amended petition, particularly when family conflict warrants a neutral third party.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that a durable power of attorney or patient advocate designation does not insulate a designee from removal when a probate court finds evidence of isolation, financial opacity, or interference with court-ordered proceedings. Attorneys advising clients on elder care planning should note that such designations can be overridden — and professional guardians substituted — when the designated agent’s conduct is found contrary to the ward’s best interests.
The case also underscores a practical point for guardianship litigation: a respondent who obstructs a court-ordered independent medical examination does so at their own peril. The court treated Sanders’s interference with Dr. Huby’s evaluation both as evidence of unsuitability and as a reason to credit lay testimony in the absence of formal medical records. Probate practitioners should counsel clients that non-cooperation with court-appointed evaluators is likely to be weighed against them on the merits.