Michigan’s New Guardianship Protections: Comparison with Ohio and Missouri

In July 2026, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed two bipartisan bills, Senate Bill 585 and Senate Bill 586, aimed at strengthening protections for adults under guardianship. These measures, welcomed by advocates including the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA), address two common points of ward vulnerability in guardianship cases: the sale of a protected person’s real estate and changes to their residence.

What the New Michigan Protections Require

The new law requires a professional appraisal (conducted within the prior six months by a licensed appraiser) before a court may approve the sale of real estate belonging to a person under guardianship or conservatorship. If the court approves a sale below the appraised value, it must justify on the record why the sale is in the person’s best interest.

The law also requires a guardian to obtain court approval before changing the residence of a person under guardianship in most cases. The guardian must demonstrate that the move is in the person’s best interest, explain why it is the least restrictive appropriate setting, describe efforts made to keep the person in their home, and address the impact on relationships and activities. The court must make specific findings.

These are targeted, practical reforms focused on two high-risk decision points where abuse or overreach can quickly strip a person of their home and remaining independence.

Are These Protections Unique? Comparison with Ohio and Missouri

The Michigan protections are not entirely unique, but they tighten and clarify safeguards that vary in strength and specificity across states.

Ohio, for example, already requires court involvement for the sale of a ward’s real estate in most situations. Guardians generally must either obtain consents from the spouse and next of kin and meet an 80%-of-appraised-value threshold (for certain consent sales), or file a formal land-sale action in probate court. 

Appraisals are commonly required or expected. Ohio law also emphasizes consideration of less-restrictive alternatives before guardianship is imposed. However, Ohio does not appear to have as explicit a statutory mandate as Michigan’s new rule requiring a recent professional appraisal and on-the-record justification for any below-appraisal sale in the specific context of a protected person’s home. 

Residence changes are subject to the guardian’s duties and court oversight, but Michigan’s new bill imposes more detailed pre-move petition and best-interest findings requirements.  The weakness in Ohio law is in applying the "least restrictive means" test at the appointment of a guardian, and not requiring it specifically for changes of residency.  In order to protect a ward, a family member or agent would have to contest the change of residency, and a court may simply approve these on recommendation of a guardian in the best interest of the ward.  In short, there is no requirement that a guardian or court assure that a change of residence to an institution is the least restrictive alternate possible. 

Missouri law requires similarly court approval for the sale of real property belonging to a protectee in supervised matters and generally expects the sale price to meet a threshold related to appraised value (commonly referenced as not less than three-fourths in many supervised contexts). Guardians and conservators must act in the protectee’s best interest, and the 2018 reforms (SB 806) strengthened the least-restrictive-alternative principle and reporting requirements. Missouri does not appear to have a recently enacted, narrowly tailored statutory requirement comparable to Michigan’s mandatory recent professional appraisal plus explicit on-the-record justification for below-value sales, nor the same detailed pre-move petition process for residence changes that Michigan just adopted.

Michigan’s new laws are incremental, though, rather than rather than revolutionary. They add clearer, more specific procedural guardrails around two decisions that frequently lead to rapid depletion of a person’s assets and loss of their home. Ohio and Missouri already require court oversight of real-estate sales and impose best-interest standards, but Michigan’s 2026 bills make the appraisal requirement and the residence-change findings more explicit and harder to bypass.

Michigan’s new requirements are welcome incremental protections. They do not, however, eliminate the need for proactive planning. The most effective way to avoid the risks associated with guardianship, i.e., the loss of independence, sacrifice of family input and control, loss of the home, rapid asset depletion, and limited recourse, remains the execution of well-designed estate planning documents such as trusts with aging-in-place and guardianship advanced directives, powers of attorney, and supported decision-making arrangements, carefully drafted and deployed before capacity is lost. Once a court has appointed a guardian, even improved statutory safeguards operate after the fact and depend on judicial oversight that varies in rigor. The Michigan legislation underscores a recurring theme: when guardianship becomes the default response, protecting the person’s remaining property and preferred residence requires specific, enforceable procedural hurdles. Families and advisors in Ohio, Missouri, and elsewhere should note both the progress and the continuing gaps.Thanks to the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) for highlighting the signing of the Michigan law. 

“Paper Prisons”: Guardianship Can Strip Away Independence — But Proactive Planning Can Protect It

The term “paper prison” describes the harsh reality faced by too many older adults under guardianship: court-ordered arrangements intended to protect them can instead remove their autonomy, isolate them from family, and control, and/or deplete their assets, all while claiming to act in their best interest.
A blog post from the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) highlights one such case in Missouri. Barbara Chaffee, a widow, has been under guardianship for four years since her husband’s death. Despite no evidence of incapacity requiring full guardianship, she has been unable to access her own savings or make basic decisions about her daily life. Her story echoes the Missouri case we examined earlier in “Paper Prisons: A Missouri Man’s Battle Against Guardianship Abuse and Why Prevention Starts with Planning.”
These accounts reveal a troubling pattern: systems designed as safety nets can become mechanisms of control when oversight is weak and incentives misaligned.One Widow’s Experience
Barbara Chaffee lived independently after her husband’s passing. A concerned report to Adult Protective Services led to an investigation, and ultimately, the appointment of a professional guardian. What followed was a gradual loss of control. The guardian restricted family contact, managed her finances with limited transparency, and placed her in a facility far from her familiar surroundings. Court records and family accounts show Barbara repeatedly expressed her desire to return home with support, yet those wishes were overridden.
Her situation is not unique. NASGA and other advocates have documented hundreds of similar cases in Missouri and across the country, where guardianships are granted with minimal hearings and limited ongoing review.  Institutional care is too often the choice of professional guardians seeking to offload the burden of contact and oversight of a troublesome or burdensome ward. Parallels to Broader Systemic Issues
Both Barbara’s case and the earlier Missouri veteran’s story share common elements: a relatively low threshold for initiating guardianship, isolation from family members who offer support, and significant financial decisions made with little accountability. In too many instances, professional guardians or agencies with connections in the probate system exercise broad authority, while families face steep legal hurdles, and sometimes penalties,  when they push back or simply demand that their care choices be honored. 
National data underscores the scope of the problem. A significant percentage of guardianships proceed without full evidentiary hearings, and oversight remains inconsistent. For those hoping to age in place, the consequences can be especially damaging: guardians may deny access to home- and community-based services, accelerate moves to facilities, or deplete resources that could have supported independent living.The Human and Financial Toll
When guardianship goes wrong, the effects extend far beyond the individual:

• Asset Control and Depletion: Homes are sold, and funds are directed toward court costs and professional fees rather than care.
• Family Separation: Loved ones are labeled “interfering,” fracturing support networks at the exact time they are most needed.
• Loss of Dignity: Daily life becomes regimented, with limited personal choice and increased health issues linked to isolation and institutional settings.  

These outcomes are not inevitable. They often stem from reactive rather than proactive approaches to aging.  Planning goes a long way to in preventing guardianships, and most importantly, retaining family control of assets in the worst cases where a guardian is appointed. Practical Steps to Safeguard Independence
The most effective protection is planning before a crisis occurs:

• Settle a Trust:  A trust can be drafted, in most states, to make assets unavailable to a court-appointed guardian.  More importantly, a trust and related documents can reduce the need and risk of guardianship. 

• Supported Decision-Making (SDM) Agreements: These allow trusted individuals to help with decisions while preserving legal rights. They can serve as strong evidence against the need for full guardianship.
• Comprehensive Estate Planning: Durable powers of attorney, revocable trusts, and Medicaid Asset Protection Trusts (MAPTs) help ensure your wishes are followed, and assets are shielded appropriately.
• Clear Family Communication: Regular, documented discussions about care preferences reduce misunderstandings and make it harder for outsiders to intervene.
• Early Legal Review: Work with an experienced elder law attorney to understand your state’s guardianship laws and build documents that reflect your values.

Attending targeted workshops or consulting resources from organizations like NASGA can also help families recognize warning signs early.Moving Forward with Awareness
Stories like Barbara Chaffee’s are difficult to read because they show how quickly independence can be lost. Yet they also serve as a powerful motivator for action. By combining legal tools such as SDM agreements and trusts with open family planning, you can help ensure that aging remains a time of choice and dignity — not control or regret.
If you or a loved one is navigating guardianship concerns or simply wants to plan thoughtfully for the future, reaching out to a qualified elder law attorney is one of the strongest steps you can take. For additional support and advocacy, organizations like the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse offer valuable resources.
Planning today can prevent tomorrow’s “paper prison.” Your independence is worth protecting.