Lucas v. Roslund Prestage & Co. (In re Greer)
| Decision Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 359531 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
| Parties | In re Conservatorship of BARBARA A. GREER. v. ROSLUND PRESTAGE & COMPANY, Conservator of BARBARA A. GREER, a legally protected person, Appellee. ONDALEE LUCAS, Appellant, |
UNPUBLISHED
Gratiot Probate Court LC No. 19-000263-CA.
Before: Elizabeth L. Gleicher, C.J., and Kirsten Frank Kelly and Anica Letica, JJ.
Appellant Ondalee Lucas (Lucas), appeals by right the probate court's order granting summary disposition in favor of Roslund Prestage &Company (RPC) under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) and denying her motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2). We affirm.
At the center of this case is a dispute concerning the home that belonged to Dale and Barbara Greer, a married couple, who are both now deceased. Lucas met the Greers when she was a child, and they eventually became akin to parents to her. The Greers did not have children of their own, and, as they aged, they began to rely on Lucas to assist them with cleaning and other household responsibilities. Eventually, Barbara developed dementia while Dale developed various physical ailments. In the fall of 2018, the couple moved into a rehabilitation home known as Masonic Pathways. Thereafter, the couple became concerned with the costs of the facility and missed living in their home. Allegedly, however, the facility would not release the couple unless they had 24-hour care. Lucas claimed that she reached an agreement with the Greers; she would move into their home and provide them with around-the-clock care. In return, the Greers would deed their home in Alma, Michigan to Lucas.
With the assistance of an attorney, Dale executed a Lady Bird deed on behalf of himself and Barbara that provided for the transfer of the home to Lucas upon their deaths. The deed was signed on February 20, 2019, and filed with the register of deeds on March 22, 2019. In this deed, the couple conveyed the property to themselves for their lifetime. It further stated that, "If D. Dale Greer and Barbara Greer have not previously conveyed the property prior to their death or the survivor of them has not previously conveyed the property prior to the survivor's death," then it was conveyed to Lucas. Although Lucas alleged that the property was conveyed in exchange for 24/7 caregiving services, the deed expressly provided that the consideration was "$0.00." The deed also stated that the instrument and transfer were exempt from taxation because the value of the consideration for the property was less than $100.00. Dale signed the deed on behalf of himself and as the attorney-in-fact for Barbara.
In April 2019, the Greers were released to Lucas, and she allegedly began providing them with around-the-clock care. Shortly after the return home, Barbara's mental condition deteriorated, and she allegedly made threats of physical harm. Barbara was returned to Masonic Pathways. On June 18, 2019, a social worker from Masonic Pathways filed a petition for mental health treatment for Barbara with the probate court. This petition alleged that Barbara was aggressive with the staff, believed that she was being poisoned, spit out the medication given to her, and wished for her death. On July 2, 2019, Dale died unexpectedly in part from a urinary tract infection that led to sepsis.
Acting as counsel for Barbara, attorney Sarah Ostahowski filed a petition to appoint a conservator and a guardian for her. Before the hearing on the petition, the probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and received a report[1] from her. At the hearing held on December 9, 2019, a social worker from Masonic Pathways testified that Barbara's cognition fluctuated because of her dementia. Barbara was unable to make healthcare and financial decisions previously handled by Dale. The social worker knew that the couple owned a home. She was unaware if Barbara's care was being paid for following Dale's death and whether Barbara received visitors. Ostahowski requested that RPC be appointed as conservator. The probate court found clear and convincing evidence that Barbara was impaired and lacked sufficient capacity to make informed decisions and was an incapacitated individual. In rendering its determination, the court relied on the reports from Barbara's treating physician and the court-appointed GAL as well as the social worker's testimony. Chad Payton of RPC was present at the hearing and accepted the court's appointment as conservator on behalf of RPC. The probate court advised that it typically required an inventory of assets within 56 days. On December 17, 2019, Payton of RPC executed a new Lady Bird deed that would pass the house to the Greers' trust instead of Lucas. On December 16, 2020, Barbara died.
In March 2021, Lucas filed a petition to set aside the second Lady Bird deed, to surcharge RPC as the conservator, and to add the trust as a party. RPC moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), alleging that the first Lady Bird deed only gave the grantor a life tenancy and did not restrict the grantor's ability to sell or mortgage the property. Therefore, RPC was entitled to divest the remainderman beneficiary before the death of the grantor. RPC alleged that any interest by Lucas was divested prior to Barbara's death, and therefore, Lucas did not have an interest or standing in the action, warranting summary disposition.
Lucas opposed the dispositive motion and moved for summary disposition in her favor under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Specifically, Lucas asserted that she met the criteria for standing at common-law and under Michigan statutes. She alleged that RPC engaged in a wrongful transfer because it did not seek court approval before transferring the interest in the property to the Greer trust. Lucas also claimed that RPC breached its fiduciary duties, engaged in prohibited conduct by making a will for Barbara in the form of the Lady Bird deed, and made a transfer contrary to Barbara's estate plan. In support of summary disposition, Lucas submitted various letters from individuals addressing the Greers' intent to give their home to Lucas in exchange for caretaking services.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of RPC and denied summary disposition to Lucas under MCR 2.116(I)(2). The trial court concluded that the first Lady Bird deed did not convey any interest to Lucas until the death of both grantors, and RPC, as the conservator, did not violate any statutory duties but was entitled to execute a Lady Bird deed in fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to the protected individual, Barbara. This appeal followed.
A trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Houston v Mint Group, LLC, 335 Mich.App. 545, 557; 968 N.W.2d 9 (2021). Summary disposition is appropriate when the opposing party failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, MCR 2.116(C)(8). In re Lett Estate, 314 Mich.App. 587, 595; 887 N.W.2d 807 (2016). Under MCR 2.116(C)(8), the legal sufficiency of the claim is examined by the pleadings alone with the factual allegations accepted as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
Summary disposition is appropriate pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10)[2] where there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law." MCR 2.116(C)(10). When reviewing a motion for summary disposition challenged under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court considers the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other admissible documentary evidence then filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. MCR 2.116(G)(4), (G)(5); Buhl v City of Oak Park, 507 Mich. 236, 242; 968 N.W.2d 348 (2021). If it appears that summary disposition is proper in favor of the opposing party, instead of the moving party, summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Empire Iron Mining Partnership v Tilden Twp, 337 Mich.App. 579, 586; 977 N.W.2d 128 (2021). Issues of statutory interpretation present questions of law subject to de novo review. Sherman v City of St Joseph, 332 Mich.App. 626, 632; 957 N.W.2d 838 (2020).
Lucas argues that RPC, as conservator, had no legal right to execute the second Lady Bird deed on behalf of Barbara without a court order. We disagree.
A Lady Bird deed is an estate planning tool that is generally utilized as a means to forgo the probate process. In re Estate of Rasmer, 501 Mich. 18, 44 n 18; 903 N.W.2d 800 (2017). To that end, such a deed "allows a property owner to transfer ownership of the property to another while retaining the right to hold and occupy the property and use it as if the transferor were still the sole owner." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). "A Lady Bird deed conveys an enhanced life estate that reserves to the grantor the rights to sell, commit waste, and almost everything else." Bill &Dena Brown Trust v Garcia, 312 Mich.App. 684, 687 n 2; 880 N.W.2d 269 (2015) (quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
Conservatorships are governed by the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq.. MCL 700.5401(3) provides that a conservator may be appointed if an "individual is unable to manage property and business affairs effectively for reasons such as mental illness mental deficiency, physical illness or disability" and "[t]he individual has property that will be wasted or dissipated unless proper management is provided, or money is needed for the individual's support, care, and welfare or for those entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial