Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Flint, Michigan family law lawyer represented the parties in a guardianship proceeding.


The probate court denied petitioner's request to be appointed as guardian and conservator of LES, an incapacitated adult. The probate court also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. We reverse and remand.

LES is petitioner's aunt. In May 2014, LES executed a durable power-of-attorney naming appellee Shirley Taylor as her primary attorney-in-fact and, in the event of a conservatorship, as conservator. LES further appointed appellee Charlie Harris as an alternative attorney-in-fact, with the same powers as Taylor, if Taylor was unwilling or unable to act. In a separate document, LES also named Taylor as her patient advocate, and Charlie as an alternative. In March 2018, LES executed a power-of-attorney document that named appellees Sarah Harris and Charlie as co-attorneys-in-fact to handle her financial and legal matters.

In March 2024, petitioner petitioned to become the guardian and conservator of LES, who was incapacitated due to dementia and other medical conditions. Petitioner acknowledged that LES had a patient advocate and power-of-attorney, but petitioner alleged that the patient advocate, Taylor, was not acting consistently with LES's best interests. There has never been a dispute about LES's incapacitation.

The probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for LES. The GAL completed a report, describing how "Taylor was making appropriate decisions for [LES] as her Patient Advocate, and was easy to work with." The GAL explained that Charlie was easy to communicate with, and he always paid LES's bills to the facility. Taylor had, however, withdrawn as patient advocate due to issues with other family members, leaving Charlie as LES's patient advocate. The GAL recommended that the probate court follow LES's wishes from her 2014 and 2018 power-of-attorney documents and deny petitioner's request. If Charlie was no longer willing to serve, then the GAL recommended that the probate court appoint a third-party patient advocate. The GAL noted that Charlie had the legal authority he needed to make decisions for LES.

Nobody filed an objection to petitioner's petitions for guardianship and conservatorship. At a hearing, only petitioner, her counsel, and the GAL were present. The probate court indicated that everyone except Charlie had "backed out" of their roles. The GAL confirmed that Charlie was performing his duties satisfactorily as attorney-in-fact and patient advocate. Petitioner's counsel asserted that she had spoken with Charlie and that he agreed with the petitions. Charlie had also served LES with the petitions. The GAL confirmed that Charlie was agreeable with whatever the family wanted, but the GAL believed Charlie was the "only one that was appropriate. On the basis of the GAL's report and a letter from LES's hospice facility, the probate court noted that there were some concerns with petitioner's suitability. Accordingly, the probate court appointed an attorney to represent LES's interests and scheduled a non-jury trial. The probate court wanted to hear testimony"from the facilities in which LES lived about petitioner's suitability and from Charlie.

Harris-Lewis v. Harris (In re LES), 371224, 371225 (Mich. App. Nov 19, 2024)

Outcome: Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: