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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT