Plummer's Estate, In re, Docket No. 12817

Decision Date30 August 1972
Docket NumberDocket No. 12817,No. 2,2
Citation42 Mich.App. 603,202 N.W.2d 429
PartiesIn re ESTATE of Craig PLUMMER, minor. STATE of Michigan, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (REVENUE DIVISION), Appellant, v. Mabelle PLUMMER, Guardian of the Estate of Craig Plummer, Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Charles E. Liken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Robert L. Taylor, Taylor, Carter & Butterfield, Lapeer, for appellee.


DANHOF, Judge.

By an order of the Probate Court for the County of Lapeer dated May 24, 1968, Craig Plummer was ordered committed to the Boys' Training School. The order further provided:

'It is Further Ordered, That all parental rights and responsibilities are not hereby terminated, and that there shall be paid to the Department of Revenue of the State of Michigan the cost of care of such child in such state agency by Mabelle Plummer, his guardian, as soon as funds are available from his father's estate.'

On January 29, 1971, Mabelle Plummer, as guardian, filed a pleading entitled 'Objection to Claim.' This pleading objected to the allowance of any claim filed by the State of Michigan for Craig's expenses while incarcerated. On February 3, 1971, the State of Michigan filed a claim in the amount of $4,016.51. A hearing was held on March 30, 1971. Relying on its previous order of May 24, 1968, the probate court allowed the claim. Mabelle Plummer then appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court set aside the order of the probate court and the State has appealed on leave granted. We affirm the order of the circuit court.

Under the facts of this case the order requiring reimbursement to the State out of a minor's estate cannot be entered. The statute under which the probate court was operating, M.C.L.A. § 712A.18; M.S.A. § 27.3178(598.18) has several specific references to reimbursement to the State. Relevant portions of M.C.L.A. § 712A.18(e); M.S.A. § 27.3178 (598.18(e)) read:

'In every commitment to a state or county institution or agency under this subsection, except when all parental rights are terminated, the order shall contain a provision requiring the parent or parents retaining parental rights to reimburse the state or county monthly for the cost of the care given the child to the extent such parent or parents are able so to do as shall be determined by the court. The amount of such reimbursement to be paid shall be included in the order of commitment of the child. * * * The court in every order of commitment to a state institution or agency under this subsection shall name the superintendent of the institution to which the child is committed as a special guardian to receive any benefits due the child from the government of the United States, and such benefits are to be used to the extent necessary to pay for the portions of the cost of care in the institution which the parent or parents are found unable to pay.'

M.C.L.A. § 712A.18(g); M.S.A. § 27.3178(598.18(g)) provides:

'Require that the parent or other adult legally responsible for the care of such child, unless said child is in the permanent custody of the court, provide such care, or reimburse the county or state for the cost of any care provided or to be provided by the county or state on order of the court, as shall to the court seem reasonable and within the ability of said parent or adult so to do, and such reimbursement shall be credited to the general fund of the county or state.'

Another statute of some relevance is M.C.L.A. § 800.401 et seq.; M.S.A. § 28.1701 et seq. This statute provides for reimbursement to the state by persons held in the state prison at Jackson, the Marquette branch prison, and the Ionia Reformatory. M.C.L.A. § 330.26 et seq.; M.S.A. § 14.816 et seq. provides for reimbursement from the estates of incompetents.

Examination of the statutes clearly indicate that the Legislature has devoted considerable attention to specific provisions governing reimbursement to the state for the expenses of persons incarcerated in a state institution. Significantly the Legislature has not seen fit to adopt legislation dealing specifically with reimbursement from the estate of a minor.

In spite of the failure of the Legislature to deal specifically with this problem, the state argues that recovery may be had under M.C.L.A. § 703.17; M.S.A. § 27.3178(217), which provides:

'Every guardian appointed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brzezinski, In re
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 28, 1995
    ...chapter, and upon the rehearing the court may affirm, modify, or set aside any order so reviewed.3 See, e.g., In re Plummer Estate, 42 Mich.App. 603, 202 N.W.2d 429 (1972). However, in other contexts, our Supreme Court has variously noted that pursuant to § 18(2) "a court can take jurisdict......
  • Adrianson, Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 9, 1981
    ...court had erroneously assumed jurisdiction. Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich. 97, 92 N.W.2d 604 (1958). See also In re Plummer Estate, 42 Mich.App. 603, 607, 202 N.W.2d 429 (1972). The strong dissents in Fritts point out a flaw in this analysis. Justices Smith and Black each applied the general la......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT