Petition for a protective order of spousal support under MCL 700.5401(3); Whether a probate court can properly consider whether Medicaid benefits will be available to a protected individual prior to an eligibility determination; In re Estate of Schroeder; In re Vansach Estate; Whether the passing of the Medicaid applicant rendered the case moot; Effect of pending Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings & Rules (MOAHR) proceedings; Scope of remedy; Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)

Noting that it had not previously addressed issuance of a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3)(b) in the Medicaid context, the court held that “a probate court can properly consider whether Medicaid benefits will be available to a protected individual prior to an eligibility determination when issuing a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3).” It overruled Schroeder because it was wrongly decided, and it held that the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the 2022 protective order in this case. Thus, it reversed the Court of Appeals judgment in this regard, reinstated the 2022 protective order, and remanded the case to the probate court. After moving to a nursing home, 82-year-old Jerome Sizick applied for Medicaid to help pay for his care. Before he did so, his wife petitioned the probate court on his behalf “for a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3), asking” it to transfer all of his assets and the majority of his income to her. The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled “that the probate court abused its discretion by finding that the requirements of MCL 700.5401(3)(b) were satisfied.” Jerome died while his wife’s application for leave to appeal was pending. The court first held that his death did not render the appeal moot. MOAHR proceedings remained pending and “reinstating the protective order will have a legal effect on” them. The court then considered the correct standard under MCL 700.5401(3). It reviewed two Court of Appeals published cases, Vansach and Schroeder, and the text of the statute. “MCL 700.5401(3) authorizes the probate court to enter a protective order if [it] determines certain conditions are present. Only” the condition in (3)(b) was “relevant here—that ‘money is needed for the individual’s support, care, and welfare or for those entitled to the individual’s support[.]’” It determined that “because any protective order issued must account for those individuals’ ongoing support needs for the foreseeable future, this assessment necessarily involves a prospective analysis.” Thus, it concluded “nothing in the statute forecloses consideration of the availability of Medicaid benefits, even if DHHS has not yet issued an eligibility determination.” This was consistent with the Vansach approach. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling in Schroeder “that probate courts cannot consider ‘Medicaid-related circumstances’ under MCL 700.5401(3)(b) if the institutionalized spouse is ‘not receiving Medicaid benefits’ and is ‘awaiting [a] Medicaid-eligibility determination[].’”