Bomba v. Bazakis (In re Bazakis)

• Decision Date: 23 June 2022
• Docket Number: 358276
• Parties: In re Guardianship of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS v. ANDREW BAZAKIS, Coguardian of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, and ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, Appellees. CHRISTY BOMBA, Coguardian of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, a legally protected person, Appellant,
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

In re Guardianship of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS

CHRISTY BOMBA, Coguardian of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, a legally protected person, Appellant,
v.
ANDREW BAZAKIS, Coguardian of ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, and ANNA-MARIE MARGARET BAZAKIS, Appellees.

No. 358276

Court of Appeals of Michigan

June 23, 2022

Saginaw Probate Court LC No. 20-140294-DD

Before: Ronayne Krause, P.J., and Murray and O'Brien, JJ.

MURRAY, J.

Appellant Christy Bomba appeals by right the August 4, 2021, order granting appellee Andrew Bazakis's motion to compel Bomba to comply with the court's January 5, 2021, order regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for their daughter, Anna-Marie Margaret Bazakis (AM). The court additionally confirmed the same order regarding parenting time and ordered Bomba to provide Bazakis with access to bank accounts related to AM. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The disputes between the parties surround the parenting time available to Bomba and the legality of a court order regarding AM's SSI payments. In the judgment of divorce, the parties were awarded joint physical and legal custody of AM, who is developmentally disabled. AM lives equally with both parents, living at each parent's home on a two-week basis. The parties also agreed to be and are AM's coguardians.

1

Years after the divorce, Bomba applied for Social Security Disability benefits for AM and was designated by the Social Security Administration as AM's representative payee.^[1] By early 2021, it was determined that AM was entitled to a $794 monthly SSI payment, and she also received a $2,381 SSI disbursement for back payments.

Soon after, disputes arose between the parties on several fronts. With respect to the SSI benefits, Bazakis was of the opinion that Bomba was failing to provide him information on the SSI application submitted on AM's behalf, information relative to the benefits awarded, and information (such as account numbers and passwords) for the account where the benefits were deposited. Regarding parenting time, the parties were unable to agree on a holiday schedule, so Bazakis moved the court to enter one for them.

The court ultimately entered an order on January 5, 2021, ordering that parenting time should continue alternating on a two-week basis and that AM spends Mother's Day with Bomba and Father's Day with Bazakis. It further split December 22 to December 24, December 24 to December 26, Thanksgiving Day, and Easter based on even and odd years. The parties were also ordered to maintain the normal two-week rotation, and there would be no special holiday schedule for other, specifically named holidays. With respect to the SSI payments, the court ordered that the Social Security Administration be informed of the parties' guardianship status and that any SSI payments received be split by the parties.

That order, however, did not resolve the parties' differences. Thus, a few months later, Bazakis moved to compel compliance with the court's January 5, 2021, order, asserting (amongst other things not relevant on appeal) that the Social Security Office refused to discuss AM's benefits or disbursements with him because he was not listed as a copayee or coguardian. Bazakis also argued that he could not access AM's online information because Bomba refused to provide "website portal access."

Ultimately, the court ordered that (1) Bomba would remain as AM's representative payee; (2) if there is portal access to the SSI account Bomba should provide access to Bazakis; (3) Bomba was to create a new bank account exclusively for AM and provide Bazakis with the password; (4) all other of AM's bank accounts should be joint with the coguardians; (5) if Bomba receives as representative payee a monthly check from the Social Security Administration, she was to provide a photocopy to Bazakis, and 50% of each check would go to Bazakis through an account chosen by his counsel, and (6) its previous order regarding both Easter and AM's birthday would remain in effect.

II. ANALYSIS

2

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL

As a preliminary issue, Bazakis argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the probate court's August 4, 2021, order was not a final order since it merely reiterated rulings from the court's August 17, 2020, and January 5, 2021, orders. We reject this argument.

The "final judgment" or "final order" definitions in MCR 7.202 apply for purposes of determining whether a judgment or order of the circuit court or Court of Claims is appealable of right to this Court under MCR 7.203(A)(1). MCR 5.801(A), however, defines the probate court orders that are appealable of right to this Court. In particular, MCR 5.801(A)(3) defines "a final order affecting the rights and interests of an adult or a minor in a guardianship proceeding under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code" as appealable of right. Bosakis offers no legal authority holding that an amended order that affects the interests of an interested person with finality cannot be a final order. Here, the August 4, 2021, order appealed from provides specific instructions on how to handle the SSI payments and provides that the court's prior order on birthdays and holidays will remain in effect. Thus, the order affects with finality Bomba's interests in those matters, making the order appealable of right under MCR 5.801(A).

B. JURISDICTION TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF SSI BENEFITS

Turning to the merits, the main issue on appeal is whether the probate court's order requiring Bomba to pay half of AM's monthly SSI benefits to Bazakis is preempted by the Social Security Act (SSA),^[2] and therefore void because the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter it. Our review of the legal question of whether a federal law preempts state action is de novo, Foster v Foster, 505 Mich. 151, 165; 949 N.W.2d 102 (2020), as it is with the interpretation of statutes, id, and with the general question of whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Elba Twp v Gratiot Co Drain Comm'r, 493 Mich. 265, 278; 831 N.W.2d 204 (2013).

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [US Const, art VI, cl 2.]

"There are three types of federal preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption." In re Vansach Estate, 324 Mich.App. 371, 390; 922 N.W.2d 136 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Express preemption occurs when a federal statute contains a clause expressly addressing preemption. Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1, 11; 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014). Federal preemption can also be implied, which is the category conflict and field preemption occupy. Grand Trunk Western R Co v City of Fenton, 439 Mich. 240, 243-244; 482 N.W.2d 706 (1992). Conflict preemption occurs when "there is a 'positive conflict' between [a federal statute and a state law] such that they 'cannot consistently stand together.'" Ter Beek,

3

495 Mich. at 11. Field preemption exists when Congress intends to foreclose any state regulation in the area, regardless of whether the state regulation is consistent with federal standards. Foster, 505 Mich. at 166. See also Grand Trunk Western R Co, 439 Mich. at 243-244 (Preemption may be express where Congress has explicitly stated its intent to preempt state law; "field," where state law regulates conduct in a field that Congress has intended to occupy exclusively; or "conflict," where state law is in actual conflict with federal law).^[3]

There is a presumption against preemption when Congress has legislated on matters over which states traditionally govern. Ter Beek, 495 Mich. at 10. See also Biondo v Biondo, 291 Mich.App. 720, 724; 809 N.W.2d 397 (2011) ("Generally, federal law does not preempt laws governing divorce or domestic relations, a legal arena belonging to the states rather than the United States.") and English v Gen Electric Co, 496 U.S. 72, 79; 110 S.Ct....