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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT