ILNews

Appellate court upholds guardian appointment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the appointment of a third-party guardian for an incompetent adult because a disinterested person may hopefully prevent unnecessary disputes caused by mistrust between the woman's children and husband.

In In the matter of the guardianship of Winona E. Brewer, adult; Debra J. Ault, Rebecca L. Pavone, and Elizabeth S. Elia-Gold v. Robert Brewer, No. 36A04-0907-CV-407, Winona Brewer's adult daughters appealed the appointment of Susan Bevers as guardian of Winona's estate. Their mother had married Robert Brewer later in life and kept separate accounts from Robert. She relied on the assistance of her daughters, Debra Ault, Rebecca Pavone, and Elizabeth Elia-Gold to help take care of her home in California and pay bills.

After suffering a stroke, Winona signed a general power of attorney document appointing her daughters as co-attorneys-in-fact. Nearly a month later, Robert filed a petition to be appointed as Winona's guardian; Ault then filed a petition to be appointed guardian. The trial court appointed Bevers as a guardian ad litem, who determined a guardian would be in Winona's best interest given how at some times she would be cognizant and other times she would "fade off."

The daughters then argued that appointing a guardian wasn't necessary because the power of attorney had been established and no petition had been filed to amend or revoke it. The trial court found Winona was incompetent when she signed the POA document, appointed Bevers as guardian, and allowed her to merge many of Winona's accounts into one to manage.

The daughters argued that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a guardian because there was a durable power of attorney. Additionally, they argued that if a guardian was properly appointed, the trial court abused its discretion by not appointing one of the designated co-attorneys-in-fact.

But the general POA document wasn't valid because Winona had been found incompetent by her doctor just three days before signing it despite her apparent coherence the day she signed it. Bevers also found Winona's understanding was intermittent and noted that Winona didn't want Ault to be her guardian, which contradicted portions of the general POA, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The daughters are also estopped from denying their mother's incompetence because of the evidence showing she was incompetent just days before signing.

"Therefore, (Winona) made no nomination in a power of attorney that would make applicable the considerations of Indiana Code Section 30-5-3-4, or the priorities favoring attorneys-in-fact in Indiana Code Section 29-3-5-4 and 5," she wrote.

Also, given the hostility between Robert and the daughters, it's in Winona's best interest to have a third party appointed guardian to avoid a protracted legal fight.

The appellate court also affirmed the trial court authorization that Bevers could unify Winona's accounts for administration under her authority as guardian over the estate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT