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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT