What makes someone suitable to serve as the personal representative when somebody has died?
In 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled on this very issue. It concerned the estate of Marjorie Shea Johnson, where the probate court determined that the nominated personal representative in the will was unsuitable to serve.
Reach out to our probate administration attorneys to discuss what to do if you believe someone is unsuitable to serve as a personal representative in Royal Oak.
The problem in the Johnson case was that the state statute doesn’t define how somebody is suitable or unsuitable to serve as a representative. In this particular case, the nominee for personal representative was doing some controversial things before they were asking to be appointed. They hid the existence of a will, had a history of fiscal mismanagement, and didn’t understand the difference between a probate estate and a trust administration.
So, the court ruled that the same standard and process used to remove a personal representative could be used in requesting that somebody is unsuitable to serve. The court ultimately ruled that this particular person was not suitable to serve as personal representative and looked to the next nominated person.
The court reviewed Statute MCL 700.3611(1). In that statute, it says an interested person may petition for removal of a personal representative for cause at any time. The statute enumerates multiple grounds on which a personal representative can be removed, including the personal representative “intentionally misrepresented facts in a proceeding” prior to the appointment. The court used the removal provision to define whether somebody is suitable to serve at the initial appointment.
The court went on to say, while the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC, the body of statutes describing probates and trusts) allows an interested party to object to the initial appointment of a personal representative (MCL 700.2302(2)) it does not define the grounds that would support such an objection, nor does EPIC define the term “unsuitable.”
The probate court found that the respondent sufficiently showed that the appointment of this person as the personal representative would not be in the best interest of the estate. Thus, they used the “best interest” standard, and the Appeals Court found it was not an abuse of discretion by the lower court in this determination.
A person in Royal Oak who was close to the deceased may find that the nominated personal representative is unsuitable to serve. As people present wills to the court, sometimes the personal representative nominee is not a good person, should not be serving, and will not serve the best interests of the estate. Maybe they’ve got a sketchy history, like a recent bankruptcy or criminal conviction. Maybe they’re fighting and acting in such an offensive behavior that they won’t do a good job as personal representative. The Appeals Court ruling allows for the possibility of preventing their appointment.
This case gives support to the fact that just because someone is nominated in this role and they have the highest order of priority, it doesn’t mean you have to sit back and accept it. You can litigate that issue if they have a history or some other factor that puts the estate at risk. Call the acclaimed probate attorney at The Probate Pro if you believe someone is not suited to serve as the personal representative for a Royal Oak estate.