Conservatorships; The conservator’s rights & obligations in spending protected funds; MCL 700.5425

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying the petitioner-former conservator’s petition to allow accounts, by discharging him as conservator, or by appointing the respondent-current conservator. The trial court removed petitioner as conservator after he spent a significant sum of money from the life insurance proceeds his son received on his mother’s death. It found that “it was petitioner’s obligation to support his child, and that his salary, along with the social security funds he received on behalf of the child, were sufficient to cover the claimed expenses without necessitating use of the insurance proceeds.” On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred when it disallowed expenses related to the child’s health, education, and welfare, noting that “the trial court based its finding on sound reasoning and conclusions” and the evidence supported its findings. “The trial court emphasized that the claimed expenses by petitioner were cumulatively less than petitioner receives from social security benefits for the minor child. As such, use of the insurance proceeds was excessive and unnecessary. Petitioner offered no evidence or argument of why or how the social security benefits were insufficient to cover the listed expenses and only summarily asserts that social security benefits were used to cover ordinary needs.” Further, “petitioner also earns a middle class wage, which he does not dispute is at least $50,000, which the trial court held could be used to cover everyday expenses for petitioner and the minor child.” The factors presented in MCL 700.5425(b) also supported the trial court’s holding as it “considered the estate size, including the social security” income, as well as their “standard of living, particularly in relation to the income received by petitioner.” Affirmed.