Legal Opinion

Miller v. Department of Mental Health

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1989No. 81754, (Calendar No. 2)PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.

The question presented is whether Carol Miller’s interest in a trust established by her father is an asset that the Michigan Department of Mental Health can claim to reimburse itself for services rendered to her by the department.

We hold that if, as contended by Carol Miller, her interest in the trust is as a beneficiary of a discretionary trust, she would not have an ascertainable interest in the assets of the trust, and her interest in the trust would not be an asset that the department may claim. Whether the trust is a discretionary trust depends, we agree with the probate judge, on the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lackmann v. Department of Mental HygieneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Matter of Estate of DodgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
  3. Coverston v. KelloggMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. First National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1982
  5. In Re Sykes EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Johannes TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Strong v. Page (In Re Page)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 1999
  3. Evans & Luptak v. ObolenskyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. In Re Hertsberg Inter Vivos TrustMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  5. McKeon v. Department of Mental HealthMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API