The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a probate court’s denial of appellants’ petition to modify the guardianship of an elderly family member, finding that the appellants had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the current guardian was unsuitable. In re Guardianship of VA, No. 372952 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2025).
VA, a 95-year-old woman diagnosed with dementia, lived in an assisted living facility in Michigan. One of her daughters, Karen Bosford, also in Michigan, petitioned the court to be named as VA’s guardian. Karen had previously been named as VA’s attorney-in-fact pursuant to a durable power of attorney and as her patient advocate pursuant to a durable power of attorney for healthcare.
In 2023, one of VA’s other daughters, Kari Rankin, along with Kari’s husband, moved VA to their home in South Carolina for three months without providing notice to Karen. The Rankins restricted VA’s communication with other family members and transferred some of VA’s funds to a bank account they managed. They had VA execute a new power of attorney, but also filed a competing petition to be appointed as VA’s guardian, which required an admission that VA lacked capacity, contradicting the assertion that she had the capacity to execute the new power of attorney.
Karen filed an action to obtain the return of VA to Michigan, and in January 2024, VA was returned to Michigan pursuant to a court order. Due to the expense of the legal action, VA could no longer afford the assisted living facility where she formerly lived, and Karen found a facility for her that accepted Medicaid. Karen and the Rankins then stipulated that VA was incapacitated under Michigan law and that Karen should be appointed as VA’s guardian, resolving the parties’ competing petitions. The court then appointed Karen as VA’s guardian.
In June 2024, the Rankins proposed that VA move to South Carolina to live with them instead of in the Medicaid facility. When unsuccessful in convincing other family members to agree, they filed a petition to modify VA’s guardianship. The probate court denied their petition, finding that the Rankins had presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Karen was not a suitable guardian. They appealed the probate court’s decision.
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals noted that when the parties resolved their competing petitions, they stipulated Karen’s willingness and suitability to be appointed as VA’s guardian under Michigan law. In addition, Karen, as VA’s attorney-in-fact and patient advocate under the previously executed powers of attorney, was given priority over the Rankins for appointment as VA’s guardian pursuant to Michigan law. The court found that the Rankins had not presented evidence supporting their assertion that Karen was no longer suitable or willing to serve as VA’s guardian. Instead, the evidence established that Karen had enrolled VA in Medicaid, found an extended care facility to provide the care VA required, and allowed free communication between VA and family members. The court rejected the Rankins’ argument that Karen had inappropriately depleted VA’s funds by incurring the legal fees to obtain VA’s return to Michigan, finding that the Rankins had caused the depletion of VA’s funds by improperly moving her to South Carolina. The court affirmed the probate court’s decision, finding that it had not abused its discretion in denying the Rankins’ petition to modify VA’s guardianship.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
