Claim for attorney fees from a decedent’s estate; Priority of claims; Whether MCL 700.5429(6) may override the priority of claims under MCL 700.3805; Advisable claims; MCL 700.5429(4); MCL 700.5429(b), (c), & (e); Personal representative (PR)

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 10/10/24.] The court held that the probate court erred by applying MCL 700.5429(6) to appellee-attorney’s claim for attorney fees from the decedent’s estate, and by ordering his claim to be paid before the DHHS’s higher priority claim pursuant to MCL 700.3805. Appellee filed a statement and proof of claim asserting he was owed $22,876.20 in legal fees for services concerning the decedent’s Medicaid eligibility. The successor PR listed appellee as the fourth and final creditor to be compensated in the amount of $0 due to insufficient assets. Appellee filed an objection asserting his legal services claim was of a higher priority than the DHHS’s claim under MCL 700.5429. On appeal, the court agreed with the DHHS that “the probate court erred when it entered its order of allowance providing that appellee’s claim be paid pursuant to MCL 700.5429(6) because MCL 700.3805 governed the priority of claims related to the distribution of a decedent’s estate and the DHHS’s . . . claim had higher priority under MCL 700.3805 than appellee’s predeath legal services’ claim.” It noted “the plain language of MCL 700.5429 reflects that it pertains to claims against a protected person during his or her lifetime, as opposed to the appropriate means of distributing the estate of protected persons after their death.” Appellee provided legal services to decedent’s conservators “regarding Medicaid eligibility greater than one year before decedent’s death. However, [he] failed to collect fees until after the administration of decedent’s estate; therefore, his claims are not the type contemplated in MCL 700.5429(6).” Even if MCL 700.5429(6) applied, it “does not address the priority of such ‘advisable’ claims, but MCL 700.5429(4) does.” Thus, under “MCL 700.5429(4), the DHHS’s claim, which falls under MCL 700.5429(b), would take priority over appellee’s claim, which may be considered under MCL 700.5429(c) as a claim incurred by the conservator for the care of decedent, as appellee’s legal services fundamentally pertained to decedent’s Medicaid eligibility, or MCL 700.5429(e), under all other claims.” In addition, appellee “failed to present an adequate reason to overlook the priority provision under MCL 700.3805, and to require the probate court to use its equitable power to bypass the Legislature’s clear intent and order payment of” his claim. “[A]ppellee’s conduct, while admirable, remains subject to the priority provision delineated under MCL 700.3805. The DHHS maintained a valid . . . claim, and pursuant to MCL 700.3805, its claim was of a higher priority than appellee’s claim when determining the appropriate distribution of decedent’s estate.” Reversed and remanded.