Conservator removal; MCL 700.5414; Good cause; Conservator duties; MCL 700.5425(b); Fiduciary duties; MCL 700.5416; Notice; Waiver; In re Conservatorship of Murray; Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC)

The court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by removing appellant as successor conservator for the protected individual (IL). After IL’s son was removed as conservator, the probate court appointed appellant as successor conservator and ordered the conservatorship bank account frozen while an auditor reviewed the prior conservator’s accounts. The probate court later learned that appellant’s staff had contacted the bank to lift the freeze without seeking relief from the court, and it scheduled an emergency hearing because there was concern whether IL’s needs were being met. Appellant did not appear at the hearing or tell the probate court he would not attend. On appeal, the court first explained that a conservator is a fiduciary under EPIC and has a duty to “expend or distribute money reasonably necessary for the support, education, care, or benefit of the protected individual.” The court then held that good cause supported removal because appellant did not have access to the frozen funds needed for IL’s care, failed to properly ask the probate court to lift the freeze, and then “demonstrated disregard for his duty to provide for IL’s welfare by failing to attend the hearing.” The court rejected appellant’s argument that he believed the hearing concerned only the audit of the prior conservator, as it failed to see how the conservator “could justifiably believe that a hearing addressing the frozen bank account needed to provide for IL’s welfare had nothing to do with him.” The court also rejected his claim that “the probate court used him as a scapegoat” or removed him because he sought the judge’s disqualification, finding nothing in the record showing animus or a coverup. Affirmed.