Appointment of a professional guardian & conservator; Procedure for seeking the replacement of a guardian or conservator; MCL 700.5415(1)(d) & 700.5310(2); Alleged violations of MCL 700.5314 & 700.1308; Alleged violations of MCL 400.11a & 700.5318; Alleged violations of MCL 700.5306(2), 700.5306a, & 700.5310; Guardian Finance & Advocacy Services (GFAS); The Social Welfare Act (SWA)

The court held that the probate court did not plainly err in appointing appellee-GFAS as professional guardian and conservator for a woman diagnosed with moderate dementia (NMR). It concluded that the appellant misstated “the law in several respects” and did not show “that GFAS violated any statutes or fiduciary duties.” The court first noted that “the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over most of the relief” appellant sought on appeal. Any “person seeking the replacement of a guardian or conservator should file a petition in the appointing court,” pursuant to MCL 700.5415(1)(d) and 700.5310(2). As to GFAS’s alleged violations of MCL 700.5314 and 700.1308, the court noted that neither statute “imposes a requirement on fiduciaries to investigate and present alternatives to the [probate] court, and neither statute addresses compensation for fiduciaries. The statutes applicable to compensation are MCL 700.5216 and MCL 700.5413, which provide that fiduciaries are entitled to ‘reasonable compensation’ for their services. Whether a fiduciary’s requested compensation is reasonable is within the probate court’s discretion.” And the record did “not support a finding that GFAS’s fees were unreasonable” here. Appellant also asserted violations of MCL 400.11a, 700.5314, and 700.5318 due to failure “to report suspected abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation. As an initial matter: (1) MCL 700.5318 is entirely inapplicable to this issue as it involves third persons dealing with a guardian or assisting a guardian in conducting a transaction, and (2) although MCL 700.5314 requires guardians to act in their ward’s best interests,” appellant did not explain how it “imposes this particular duty. MCL 400.11a is the mandated reporting provision of the” SWA, but the record did “not establish that GFAS failed to report suspected abuse or had ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that NMR had been abused, neglected, or exploited.” As to the asserted violations of MCL 700.5306(2), 700.5306a, and 700.5310, none of these statutes set “forth any requirements that a guardian must comply with before placing a ward into a memory-care facility.” Affirmed.