B
F
A
R
 

Setting the Stage.  The Michigan legislature in 2006 enacted some new provisions of our probate laws to clarify confusion about who has authority to direct funeral, burial or cremation arrangements. 

Confusion Reigns. Prior to the enactment of the new law, Michigan statutes conflicted about the persons who are authorized to make funeral arrangements. The Michigan Mortuary Science Code, MCL 339.1810(n), stated that Anext of kin@ could decide on the disposal of a decedent=s remains.  However, there was no specification in the statute as to any priority among Akin@ and what to do if there  were disagreements in the family.  In my experience, this often led to delays and disputes, which were not only embarrassing, but placed the funeral director in a very awkward position.

To add to the confusion, our Michigan Probate Law, EPIC, MCL 700.3701, provided that a Personal Representative appointed by a Will was authorized to carry out the decedent=s written instructions. 

Therefore, there was not only confusion about the person authorized to give funeral directions, but, further, were the decedent=s written instructions to be followed, or were the wishes of the family or Anext of kin@ controlling?  

New Michigan Law.  By enacting new sections of  our Probate Code, EPIC, the Michigan legislature has decided that the wishes of the family can trump  the written directions of a decedent.  From personal  experience and professional journals, I am aware that other states have come out the other way and go  at length to enforce and carry out the wishes of a decedent, especially if expressed in writing. 

The new Michigan law, in effect from July 1, 2006, gives priority to family members in making decisions about a decedent=s remains.  These family members can override a decedent=s written directions contained in a Will or otherwise.  First on the priority list is the spouse of the decedent.  If there is no spouse, the next priority level would be descendants Aby representation@.  Presumably, this would mean surviving children having priority over  grandchildren, for example.

The new section MCL 700.3206 (4) provides that if there are two or more individuals on the same level, the decision shall be made by the majority.  If the majority cannot agree, any individual in that level can file an expedited petition in the local probate court under MCL 700.3207 to have the matter decided.

Amazingly, the wishes and intentions of the decedent are not among the factors which the court  is directed to consider as relevant factors in making any decision about arrangements for funeral, burial or cremation.   The closeness of the relationship between the moving party and decedent and whether that person is willing to pay the funeral costs, are factors which the court is directed to consider.  In sum, the priority of the new law seems to be rapid decision making, clarity for  funeral directors and exculpation for funeral directors who follow the new procedures.  

Do We Change Wills?  Normally, estate planning attorneys ask clients if they have any specific wishes or directions concerning final arrangements, burial, cremation, etc.  Typically, these are incorporated into a person's Will.  The new law throws these directions and evidence of intentions into question.  We will recommend that individuals continue the practice of expressing their wishes, but advisors should counsel them that these directions are not binding.  Hopefully, family members would be made aware of the decedent=s wishes and follow  them.  However, individuals will need to understand that specific wishes of a surviving spouse, or specific religious convictions, may override a client=s own wishes concerning these matters.  My difficult experiences have generally involved a second marriage and a dispute between a surviving spouse and the decedent=s own children.  This situation can be aggravated when the children do not agree.

The new law, however, removes much of the confusion from the old law and provides specifically that the surviving spouse can give funeral directions.  These situations can get awkward.  I would personally not agree with the legislature=s conclusion to override a decedent=s written instructions by family decisions.  But at least we have more clarity in the law and specific provisions for making these important decisions in an expeditious manner. 

While I cannot comment specifically, it is my impression that the new statutes were motivated by pressure from the funeral industry with relatively little input from the probate bar.  However, be that as it may, at least the conflict in the statutes has been resolved and we now have a definitive procedure for dealing with these matters. 

Conclusion.  While the matter of final arrangements is not one which arises to the level of critical importance for many people, and particularly for financial advisors, family conflicts can be avoided by good communication, by expressions of the decedent=s intent in a Will, and on a practical level by prepaid funeral arrangements.  Should these questions or any other probate or trust matters confront you personally or through one of your clients, please contact  Jim Modrall at (231) 941-9660 or any of the other attorneys listed below.

 Donald A. Brandt, Joseph C. Fisher, Thomas R. Alward, Edgar Roy, III, Matthew D. Vermetten, Thomas A. Pezzetti, Jr., John M. Grogan, Vicki P. Kundinger,  Susan Jill Rice,  Gary D. Popovits,  Lawrence K. Kustra, H. Douglas Shepherd, Jonathan J. Siebers and Karin Church at (231) 941-9660

  ©BRANDT, FISHER, ALWARD & ROY, P.C.

This newsletter is provided for informational purposes and should not be acted upon without professional
advice.

WEALTH CONSERVATION:
PROFESSIONAL ALERT
Brandt, Fisher, Alward & Roy, P.C.
If you would like to
receive future editions
of the monthly Wealth
Conservation
Newsletter directly to
your e-mail account,
please e-mail our office
using the following link:

 
Estate Planning
Newsletter
Brandt, Fisher,
Alward & Roy, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
April 2007
TO BURY OR NOT TO BURY
by James R. Modrall III, J.D., C.P.A.