« Courts - "New Orleans: Prospective Juror Sues Judge Over Intrusive Questionnaire" | Main | Ind. Law - Even more on "Grandparents testify in Indy to establish visitation rights"; Bill defeated »

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Guardianship of Winona E. Brewer; Debra J. Ault, Rebecca L. Pavone, et al. v. Robert Brewer, a 15-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

[II] Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a guardian over Toby’s estate. Specifically, they contend that Toby had created a durable power of attorney, and, therefore, no guardian over her estate was necessary. Additionally, they argue that if a guardian was properly appointed, the trial court abused its discretion by not appointing Toby’s designated co-attorneys-in-fact. We address these issues together because our analysis is intertwined. * * *

Appellants are correct that Indiana law favors appointment of a principal’s nominated attorney-in-fact as her guardian, but here there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Toby was incompetent when she signed the General Power of Attorney, and the Appellants are estopped from disputing that fact. Therefore, Toby 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.

Appellants also contend that there was no evidence or determination that the appointment of Bevers as guardian over Toby’s estate was in Toby’s best interest. * * * The last thing in Toby’s interest would be a protracted legal fight between her husband and children. The appointment of a disinterested party as the guardian over Toby’s estate will hopefully prevent unnecessary disputes caused by mistrust between Robert and the Appellants. Therefore, we conclude that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it appointed Bevers as guardian over Toby’s estate.

[III] Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by empowering Bevers to combine Toby’s financial holdings into one account, which would effectively dispose of Toby’s directive that the funds in certain accounts be paid to her daughters upon her death. Appellants contend that no statutory authority permits a guardian to effectively terminate disposition designations. * * *

By unifying Toby’s financial holdings, Bevers was facilitating her duty to take possession of Toby’s property and to provide care and supervision over that property. These acts were fully within her authority as guardian over Toby’s estate. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it authorized and suggested that Bevers unify Toby’s accounts for administration.

[Conclusion] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing Bevers as guardian over Toby’s estate, nor did it abuse its discretion by empowering Bevers to unify Toby’s financial holdings for administration of that estate. Affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of G.H., IV; S.R. v. IDCS (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Larry Buntain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jimmy Clark, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Larry Rinearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 2, 2010 11:00 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions