Background
John Richard Vidolich II petitioned for guardianship of his mother, LAV, four years after an earlier guardianship and conservatorship dispute had ended in a settlement. He alleged that his brother, Daniel Vidolich, had shut him out of LAV’s life, obtained a new patient-advocate designation, and denied others access to her. He also alleged that Daniel was not exercising his authority in LAV’s best interests.
The probate court scheduled a hearing focused on whether Daniel’s power of attorney was valid. At that hearing, petitioner conceded its validity but maintained that Daniel’s use of the authority remained at issue. The probate court nevertheless dismissed the guardianship petition, reasoning that the valid power of attorney provided a less restrictive means of protecting LAV. After learning that LAV was living outside the county, the court also told petitioner to pursue his concerns there.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. To the extent the probate court relied on improper venue, dismissal was an error of law. Under the governing court rule, the appropriate remedy was a change of venue, initiated by a party’s motion or by the court after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither occurred.
The probate court also abused its discretion by dismissing the petition on the merits solely because a valid power of attorney existed. A valid power of attorney or patient-advocate designation does not necessarily eliminate the need for a guardian. If the person exercising that authority violates the governing document, fails to perform required duties, or does not act in the proposed ward’s best interests, a court may appoint a guardian. Petitioner was therefore entitled to have his allegations concerning misuse of the authority considered.
Key Takeaways
- Improper venue calls for transfer, not dismissal, when the required procedures are followed.
- A valid power of attorney does not categorically preclude appointment of a guardian.
- A probate court must consider allegations that an attorney-in-fact or patient advocate is acting contrary to the proposed ward’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the existence of a less restrictive protective arrangement from whether that arrangement is functioning properly. Probate courts cannot end a guardianship proceeding merely upon confirming that facially valid authority exists when the petition alleges that the authority is being abused.
The opinion also reinforces that venue defects must be addressed through the prescribed transfer procedure, with notice and an opportunity to be heard, rather than by closing the case.