in Re Guardianship of Alice Krause ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                           STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    In re GUARDIANSHIP OF ALICE KRAUSE.
    LYNN M. MAISON, as Successor Guardian of                            UNPUBLISHED
    ALICE KRAUSE, a Legally Incapacitated                               December 27, 2018
    Individual,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v                                                                   No. 341153
    Macomb Probate Court
    CAROLINE KRAUSE-IAFRATE,                                            LC No. 2012-207919-GA
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and TUKEL, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Petitioner, Lynn Maison, guardian of Alice Krause, appeals as of right the probate court’s
    order denying an emergency petition for entry of a stipulated order detailing a transition plan for
    Krause’s relocation filed by her daughter, respondent Caroline Krause-Iafrate. We reverse and
    remand.
    Krause is an elderly woman with two daughters, including Krause-Iafrate. Krause’s
    history of mental illness and alcohol abuse precipitated her need for a guardian. At the time of
    the filing of the original petition for appointment of a guardian in 2012, Krause was estranged
    from her children, and petitioner became her court-appointed guardian in 2013. Sometime
    between 2013 and 2015, Krause resumed phone contact with Krause-Iafrate. In 2015, Krause-
    Iafrate traveled to Michigan to discuss plans to transition Krause to North Carolina, where
    Krause-Iafrate resided with her spouse and children. Krause desired the move and to be close to
    her family. However, those plans were placed on hold when Krause was diagnosed with
    lymphoma.
    In May 2017, Krause’s PET scan revealed no signs of malignancy and she expressed her
    desire to relocate to North Carolina immediately. Petitioner was concerned that an impulsive
    move would be detrimental and requested that a transitional plan be developed for Krause’s
    relocation. Krause-Iafrate agreed that a transitional plan was needed, and she filed a petition to
    be appointed as Krause’s successor guardian in order to effectuate the move. The probate court
    -1-
    enlisted the help of a guardian ad litem, who confirmed Krause’s desire to relocate with her
    family but recommended that Krause-Iafrate’s motions be denied or placed in abeyance until
    such time that a transitional plan could be developed and implemented for a trial period of
    residency in North Carolina. The probate court appointed an attorney for Krause and ordered a
    six-month adjournment of the motions.
    Subsequently, petitioner, Krause-Iafrate, and Krause’s newly appointed attorney worked
    together to develop a transition plan that would allow the Michigan guardianship to remain in
    force during a 180-day transitional period in which Krause would relocate to a residential facility
    in North Carolina that was in close proximity to Krause-Iafrate’s home and work. The
    transitional plan required a hearing at the completion of the 180-day transitional period to
    determine whether guardianship should continue in Michigan or whether guardianship by
    Krause-Iafrate would be appropriate in North Carolina. The probate court denied Krause-
    Iafrate’s petition to enter the stipulated order after concluding that if Krause were out-of-state,
    she would be beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court.
    On appeal, petitioner argues that the probate court improperly denied respondent’s
    emergency petition for entry of the stipulated order on the basis of its erroneous belief that it
    would not retain jurisdiction over Krause if she were removed from Michigan. We agree.
    Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo on appeal. Michigan’s Adventure, Inc v
    Dalton Twp, 
    287 Mich App 151
    , 153; 782 NW2d 806 (2010). This Court also “reviews for an
    abuse of discretion a probate court’s dispositional rulings and reviews for clear error the factual
    findings underlying a probate court’s decision.” In re Bibi Guardianship, 
    315 Mich App 323
    ,
    328, 890 NW2d 387 (2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the probate court “chooses an
    outcome outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Id. at 329 (quotation marks
    and citation omitted). The probate court “necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an
    error of law.” Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 
    499 Mich 544
    , 552; 886
    NW2d 113 (2016). “A probate court’s finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing court is left
    with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is evidence to
    support the finding.” Bibi, 315 Mich App at 328 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
    “Jurisdiction, when applied to courts, is the power to hear and determine a cause or
    matter. Jurisdiction lies at the foundation of all legal adjudications.” Bowie v Arder, 
    441 Mich 23
    , 36; 490 NW2d 568 (1992) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Probate courts are
    courts of limited jurisdiction and derive their jurisdiction and power from statutory authority.”
    In re Martin, 
    237 Mich App 253
    , 255; 602 NW2d 630 (1999); see also MCL 700.1201; MCL
    700.1203(1). The probate court has exclusive legal and equitable jurisdiction over “a proceeding
    that concerns a guardianship, conservatorship, or protective proceeding.” MCL 700.1302(c).
    MCL 700.5317 provides:
    (1) The court in the county where the ward resides has concurrent
    jurisdiction over resignation, removal, accounting, and other proceedings relating
    to the guardianship with the court that appointed the guardian or in which
    acceptance of a parental or spousal appointment was filed.
    -2-
    (2) If the court in the county where the ward resides is not the court in
    which acceptance of appointment is filed, the court in which a proceeding is
    commenced after the appointment in appropriate cases shall notify the other court,
    in this or another state, and after consultation with that court, shall determine
    whether to retain jurisdiction or transfer the proceeding to the other court,
    whichever is in the best interests of the ward. After this determination is made,
    the court accepting a resignation or removing a guardian shall direct this fiduciary
    to prepare and submit a final report to both courts. A copy of an order accepting a
    resignation or removing a guardian and a copy of the final report must be sent to
    the court in which acceptance of appointment is filed. The court entering this
    order may permit closing of the guardianship in the court in which acceptance of
    appointment is filed, without notice to interested persons.
    Thus, “the transfer of jurisdiction is contingent upon the occurrence of a final accounting and
    resignation by the guardian in the court in which the letters of authority were issued.” In re
    Thomas Estate, 
    211 Mich App 594
    , 598-599; 536 NW2d 579 (1995). Furthermore, the Full
    Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, US Const, art IV, § 1, “ ‘requires that a
    foreign judgment be given the same effect that it has in the state of its rendition.’ ” Blackburne
    & Brown Mtg Co v Ziomek, 
    264 Mich App 615
    , 620; 692 NW2d 388 (2004) (citation omitted).
    In this case, the subject guardianship proceedings were initially commenced in the
    Macomb Probate Court. The probate court appointed petitioner as Krause’s guardian. After
    petitioner learned that Krause desired to make the transition to North Carolina to live closer to
    relatives, petitioner asked the court to implement a transitional plan to ensure Krause’s physical
    and emotional well-being. Following a hearing on the motion, petitioner, respondent, and
    Krause’s court-appointed attorney developed a transitional plan to be supported by a court order
    to ensure compliance. The petition indicated that the probate court would retain jurisdiction by
    virtue of the continued guardianship proceedings. Furthermore, the proposed order included a
    clause indicating that “at the end of the 180-day transition period, a hearing will be held to
    determine if the Guardianship over Alice Krause should continue in Michigan or be terminated
    upon the commencement of a new Guardianship proceeding in North Carolina.” The trial court,
    however, indicated its belief that it would not have jurisdiction once Krause left the state.1
    Despite counsel’s argument regarding the utility of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the probate
    court disagreed.
    1
    Petitioner indicates that during an unrecorded portion of the hearing, the probate court asserted
    that it lacked the authority to enter the stipulated order because it would not retain jurisdiction
    following Krause’s removal from Michigan. The portion of the record transcribed, however,
    includes only the probate court’s conclusion that it would lose jurisdiction if it entered the
    order—not that it lacked authority to enter the order in the first instance. In any event, in light of
    our conclusion that the probate court’s decision was premised on its error of law concerning
    jurisdiction, we need not address this discrepancy.
    -3-
    Petitioner avers that a final guardianship report has not been filed and that the probate
    court was not required to terminate the guardianship proceedings in order to enter the stipulated
    order. Furthermore, petitioner did not seek to resign. These assertions are undisputed, and
    indeed would not change as a result of the probate court’s entry of the stipulated order. “[T]he
    transfer of jurisdiction is contingent upon the occurrence of a final accounting and resignation by
    the guardian in the court in which the letters of authority were issued.” Thomas Estate, 211
    Mich App at 599. Accordingly, the probate court would continue to have a statutory basis for
    jurisdiction, and even if Krause’s relocation to North Carolina were effectuated, the probate
    court would retain jurisdiction under both the stipulated order and MCL 700.5317.
    Furthermore, North Carolina subscribes to the Uniform Adult Guardianship and
    Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA). NCGS 35B-1. The public policy goals of
    the UAGPPJA include establishing “procedures for transferring guardianship from one state to
    another state when the incapacitated adult moves” and providing “a uniform national system for
    registration and enforcement of out-of-state guardianship orders.” NCGS 35B-1(d). In order to
    confirm a transfer of a guardianship to North Carolina, a petition to transfer “must include a
    certified copy of the other state’s provisional order of transfer.” NCGS 35B-31(a). Furthermore,
    a provisional petition for transfer is not to be granted if “an objection is made and the objector
    establishes that transfer of the proceeding would be contrary to the interests of the incapacitated
    or protected person.” NCGS 35B-31(d)(1). Additionally, NCGS 35B-31(g) specifically
    recognizes the jurisdiction of other states:
    In granting a petition under this section, the court shall recognize a general
    guardianship, guardianship of the person, or guardianship of the estate order from
    the other state, including the determination of the incapacitated or protected
    person’s incapacity and the appointment of the general guardian, guardian of the
    person, or guardian of the estate.
    Accordingly, North Carolina’s courts would recognize the jurisdiction of the Michigan probate
    court and would require an order of transfer before allowing a transfer of guardianship.
    Petitioner also would maintain the ability to raise an objection to the transfer if the transfer was
    not in Krause’s best interests.
    Ultimately, if a permanent relocation to North Carolina were in Krause’s best interests
    after the 180-day transition period, the probate court would remain in a position to make the
    determination as to whether it should transfer the guardianship proceedings to the jurisdiction of
    a North Carolina court. MCL 700.5317; NCGS 35B-31(a). Any orders arising out of the
    Macomb County guardianship proceedings would remain enforceable under the Full Faith and
    Credit Clause, MCL 700.5317, and NSGS 35B-31(g). In sum, the probate court would remain in
    a position to safeguard Krause and her interests until it was convinced that a transfer was in
    Krause’s best interests. Therefore, the probate court clearly erred by concluding that it would no
    longer have jurisdiction over Krause following entry of the proposed stipulated order.
    Accordingly, we conclude that the probate court abused its discretion by denying respondent’s
    emergency motion for entry of the stipulated order on the basis of this error of law. Thus, on
    remand, the probate court will still need to consider whether the stipulated order contained terms
    appropriate and sufficient to protect Krause.
    -4-
    We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
    retain jurisdiction.
    /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
    /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
    /s/ Jonathan Tukel
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 341153

Filed Date: 12/27/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2018