Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Decades-Old Rule on Medicaid Planning in Probate Cases

## New Precedent Expands Probate Courts' Authority to Consider Future Medicaid Benefits

**LANSING** — The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously overruled a 2020 Court of Appeals decision on Wednesday, expanding probate courts' authority to consider Medicaid benefits when making protective orders for elderly or disabled individuals.

The ruling in *In re Estate of Jerome E. Sizick* marks a significant shift in how Michigan courts handle the complex intersection of probate law and Medicaid eligibility determinations.

### The Case That Changed Everything

Janet and Jerome Sizick were married for over 60 years. When Jerome's health declined in 2021 and he moved into a nursing home, Janet petitioned the Saginaw Probate Court for a protective order under MCL 700.5401(3), seeking to transfer Jerome's assets and provide her with $2,318 in monthly support before his Medicaid application had been decided.

The probate court granted the order. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) repeatedly appealed, leading to a six-year appellate battle before reaching the state's highest court.

At the heart of the dispute was a fundamental question: May a probate court consider the potential availability of Medicaid benefits when analyzing the needs of a protected individual and his dependents, even before DHHS has made a formal eligibility determination?

> The Court held that MCL 700.5401(3)(b) requires a probate court to assess the foreseeable support needs of both the protected individual and his dependents — an inherently forward-looking inquiry. Nothing in the statute limits the court to circumstances as they exist at the exact moment of the hearing. Medicaid eligibility is therefore a proper consideration, even if DHHS has not yet acted.

### Overruling Schroeder

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled *In re Estate of Schroeder*, 335 Mich App 107 (2020), which had held that probate courts cannot consider Medicaid-related circumstances until after a formal eligibility determination is made.

The Court found the *Schroeder* rule had no basis in the statute's text and was internally inconsistent. Schroeder itself acknowledged that patient-pay amounts can be estimated before an application is even filed, yet still required an actual determination before a court could act on that information.

> The Supreme Court concluded that the statute requires a forward-looking, individualized assessment of needs that can include expected Medicaid coverage, found no abuse of discretion in the probate court's analysis, and remanded for further proceedings with the original protective order reinstated.

### Practical Impact on Families

The practical stakes of this ruling are high. Jerome died during the appeal, but the Court held the case remained live because reinstating the protective order would have a practical legal effect.

Michigan Medicaid policy permits retroactive reimbursement to deceased applicants whose denials are overturned on appeal, meaning Jerome's estate could still recover benefits to offset a $125,000+ nursing home debt.

The Court found the probate court's needs analysis on remand was thorough and well-supported. Jerome was left approximately $682 per month after the support award — sufficient to cover his patient-pay obligations under Medicaid — so the order was consistent with prior precedent *In re Vansach Estate*, 324 Mich App 371 (2018).

> The Court emphasized that the statute does not let courts simply prioritize a community spouse's needs over those of the institutionalized spouse. A protective order cannot impoverish the institutionalized spouse or be used as an end-run around Medicaid.

### Dismissing Harmless Error

The Court of Appeals had expressed concern about "outdated" asset valuations in the probate court's analysis, noting some valuations were a few years old. The Supreme Court dismissed this as harmless error — there was no indication that fresh appraisals would have changed the outcome, and the original order directed transfer of 100 percent of Jerome's assets regardless.

The Court of Appeals' ruling was reversed and the case was remanded to the probate court for further proceedings.

### Simultaneous Property Tax Case

While deciding the Sizick estate case, the Michigan Supreme Court also issued an order in *Knier, Powers, Martin, & Smith, LLC v. City of Bay City*, setting the case for oral argument on the application for leave to appeal.

The Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the installation of a new roof on the petitioner's commercial property qualifies as an "addition" under the Michigan Constitution and state property tax statutes.

This order follows a published Court of Appeals decision affirming the Michigan Tax Tribunal, which held that the roof replacement constituted "new construction" and therefore an "addition," allowing the City of Bay City to increase the property's taxable value beyond the usual cap on annual increases.

The Sizick ruling represents another important step in how Michigan courts balance the needs of families caring for elderly or disabled loved ones with the fiscal constraints of state government.

### Key Takeaways

- **Probate courts may now consider anticipated Medicaid benefits** when making protective orders under MCL 700.5401(3), even before formal eligibility determinations

- **The Sizick ruling overrules a 2020 Court of Appeals decision**, changing established precedent

- **Forward-looking needs analysis** is required, assessing foreseeable support needs of protected individuals and dependents

- **Protective orders cannot impoverish institutionalized spouses** or serve as an end-run around Medicaid

- **The Knier property tax case** proceeds to oral argument on whether roof replacement constitutes "new construction"

This ruling will have broad implications for estate planning, probate practice, and the care of elderly and disabled individuals across Michigan.

---

**Sources:**

- *In re Estate of Jerome E. Sizick*, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, April 7, 2026: https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2026/04/07/michigan-supreme-court-issues-makes-decisions-on-2-cases/

- Speaker Law Firm analysis of Michigan Supreme Court ruling: https://www.speakerlaw.com/blog/michigan-supreme-court-expands-probate-court-authority-in-medicaid-planning-cases