Plan To Be 100

I posted about In Re Guardianship of Mary Ann Malloy when the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion last fall.  The question in the case is whether professional guardians can charge no-fault carriers for services they provide, but which the person appointed as guardian does not personally perform?  Or said another way, can a guardian charge for services they delegate to staff? Outside the context of no-fault insurance payments, the case seems to implicate whether the guardianship laws in EPIC allow a public guardian to delegate their statutory duties or whether the person appointed guardian must personally perform these activities?

These questions matter a great deal to people and entities who perform guardianship services in Michigan.

The COA decision came out in favor allowing guardians to delegate their duties.  Professional guardians breathed a collective sigh of relief.  Now the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at that COA decision.

To read my prior post, click here.

Tor read the MSC order granting leave, click here.

WTF

It’s troubling that the MSC order specifically invites the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar to file an amicus brief, but not the Elder Law and Disability Rights Section.  I suspect the Probate Section will accept the offer, and that’s fine.  My concern is that this issue is clearly more within the wheelhouse of the ELDRS and the MSC should know that.