Guardian removal; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC); Changing proceedings from a modification of the guardianship to a removal of the guardian; Notice; MCL 700.5311; Failure to perform a suitability analysis before removing appellant as guardian; In re Redd Guardianship; MCL 700.5310; Plain error review; Appointment of a professional guardian; MCL 700.5106(1) & (2); Individuals with priority; MCL 700.5313(2) & (3); In re Gerstler Guardianship

The court held that the probate court’s apparent shifting of the proceedings from guardianship modification to removal at the start of the hearing was inconsistent with the notice requirements of MCL 700.5311. Further, a “probate court needs to determine a guardian’s unsuitability” and the court concluded the findings in this regard here were “unconvincing.” In addition, it agreed with appellant that the probate court erred “by appointing a professional guardian without first establishing on the record that no other individuals with priority were either willing or suitable to serve.” Thus, the court reversed the “order removing him as guardian of his wife, AMS, an incapacitated person, and appointing appellee to be AMS’s professional guardian” and remanded. Appellant argued “that the probate court abused its discretion by changing the proceedings from a modification of the guardianship to a removal of the guardian without providing him and AMS with the notice required by statute.” The court determined that reversal was mandated based on this issue. “The notice of the hearing issued to the appellant and AMS indicated a modification rather than a removal. It was only upon the commencement of the hearing that the probate court appeared to shift the proceedings from modification to removal. This deviation was not consistent with MCL 700.5311(1). Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that AMS received personal service in accordance with MCL 700.5311(2). Such requirements are mandated, as underscored by the use of the term ‘must.’” On remand, AMS and appellant “must receive the necessary notice prior to convening a removal hearing.” The court also concluded the probate court plainly erred in “not engaging in the proper analysis” as to appellant’s unsuitability and this error affected his “substantial rights because he was removed as AMS’s guardian. . . . On remand, the probate court must follow the EPIC and determine whether appellant was suitable before removing him as guardian.” In addition, the “probate court neglected to consider whether there were other competent, suitable, and willing individuals with priority, such as AMS’s two daughters and sister.” It must make the necessary findings on remand before appointing a professional guardian.