IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF GALI, No. 99-683.
| Docket Nº | No. 99-683. |
| Citation | 998 P.2d 541, 2000 MT 83 |
| Case Date | April 04, 2000 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
998 P.2d 541
2000 MT 83
No. 99-683.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs March 9, 2000.
Decided April 4, 2000.
Frank C. Richter, Richter, Torkelson, Hanson & Tucker, Billings, Montana, For Appellant.
Chief Justice J.A. TURNAGE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Anton W. Gali appeals an order of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Powder River County, which refused his request to substitute two new guardians and conservators for those previously appointed for him. We affirm.
¶ 2 The issues are:
¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in refusing to remove the present guardians and conservators and appoint new ones?
¶ 4 2. Do the present guardians and conservators have authority to terminate legal representation for Gali?
¶ 5 3. Does venue for this action lie in Yellowstone County?
¶ 6 In May 1998, two of 82-year-old Anton W. Gali's six adult children petitioned to be appointed as his guardians and conservators, asserting that his advancing age and bipolar mental disorder rendered him an incapacitated person. The District Court appointed an attorney to represent Gali and a physician to examine him. Following a hearing, the petitioning children were appointed as Gali's co-guardians and conservators and were ordered to file annual financial accountings with the court.
¶ 7 In March 1999, Gali, through his appointed counsel, moved the court for termination of his incapacity or, in the alternative, for removal of his co-guardians and conservators and appointment of others to serve in those capacities. By the time of the September 1999 hearing on the motion, however, Gali had become quite ill and conceded that continuation of a guardianship and conservatorship was appropriate. At the hearing, Gali's counsel argued only for the appointment of new guardians and conservators, based upon Gali's unhappiness with his son and daughter's performance in those roles. Specifically, counsel presented evidence that prior to Gali's most recent illness, he felt that his son and daughter did not communicate with or visit him enough, provide him with enough spending money, or forward his mail to him promptly enough.
¶ 8 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the request for appointment of new guardians and conservators. The court stated that Gali had not proven that his present guardians and conservators had failed to act in an appropriate fashion. Gali appeals.
Issue 1
¶ 9 Did the District Court err in refusing to remove the present guardians and conservators and appoint new ones?
¶ 10 Under Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ. P., this Court reviews a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence, if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if this Court is left...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of L.D.L., No. DA 14–0276.
...Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence. In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Gali, 2000 MT 83, ¶ 10,299 Mont. 178, 998 P.2d 541. The decision whether to terminate or continue a guardianship is a matter of discretion for the district court......
-
State v. Zabransky,
...and federal constitutions. ARMSTRONG, J., dissenting. I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Buffum, 166 Or.App. 552, 998 P.2d 541 -------- Notes: 1. In fact, Zabransky tried to make a statement early in the hearing, and the court told him, "We'll let you speak through y......
-
In re Estate of L.D.L., No. DA 14–0276.
...Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence. In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Gali, 2000 MT 83, ¶ 10,299 Mont. 178, 998 P.2d 541. The decision whether to terminate or continue a guardianship is a matter of discretion for the district court......
-
State v. Zabransky,
...and federal constitutions. ARMSTRONG, J., dissenting. I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Buffum, 166 Or.App. 552, 998 P.2d 541 -------- Notes: 1. In fact, Zabransky tried to make a statement early in the hearing, and the court told him, "We'll let you speak through y......