 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Brady1/27/2005
{ } Appellant Catherine Brady appeals from the final judgment entered on March 22, 2004 approving the application for authority to settle the lawsuit and denying her request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. In addition, appellant is also appealing the final judgment entered on May 6, 2004 denying the exceptions to guardian's first partial account and denying the motion to supplement exceptions to guardian's first partial account. Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the pertinent law, we hereby affirm the trial court.
I.
{ } This case has a long history with this court; however, we are only going to address the specific appeal before us. This appeal involves a consolidated case, incorporating case numbers 84517 and 84743. Edward Brady, appellant's brother, was appointed as guardian of Nora Brady's person in May 2000. Nora Brady is appellant's mother and was approximately 71 years old at the time of the appointment. In January 2002, attorney John McCaffrey was appointed as guardian of Nora Brady's estate only.
{ } Attorney McCaffrey filed his first partial account on January 16, 2004. Appellant filed exceptions to this account and later asked the court for leave to supplement these exceptions. The court overruled both on April 28, 2004. Appellant then asked the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, the court denied this request as well. These orders are the subject of the appeal in case number 84743.
{ } On February 25, 2004, the guardian, John McCaffrey, sought leave to settle a lawsuit which had been filed on the ward's behalf. According to a recent decision by this court in that proceeding, the complaint was originally filed by the appellant pursuant to a power of attorney which the mother had given her.
However, the guardian later revoked the power of attorney and substituted himself as plaintiff. The suit alleged that another daughter of the ward and her husband withdrew approximately $100,000 from the mother's Vanguard account. The daughter and husband deposited the money into an account in the mother's name at Key Bank and then applied the proceeds for their personal use.
{ } Appellant opposed the guardian's application for leave to settle the case. However, the court eventually granted the guardian's application and denied appellant's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. These decisions are the subject of the other case in this consolidated appeal, our appellate case number 84517. Appellant now appeals the entry approving the authority to settle the lawsuit, denying her request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and denying the exceptions regarding the guardian's first partial account.
II.
{ } Appellant's first assignment of error states the following: "The trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error in failing to reject the non-standard Probate Forms 17.0, 17.1, 15.0, 15.1, and 15.2 which must be stricken from the record pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Civil Rule 73(H), utilizing Sup.R. 51 and Sup.R. 52, under the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5(B)."
{ } In the case sub judice, appellant argues that the nonstandard probate forms used in this case did not comport with the requirements of Civ.R. 73(H), Sup.R. 51, and Sup.R. 52.2, and therefore must be stricken from the record. Appellant also states that she had no notice of the guardianship proceeding. We do not find appellant's claims to be well founded.
{ } Civ.R. 73(H) states the following: "Rule 73. PROBATE DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS "(H) Forms used in probate practice. -- Forms used in proceedi
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|