What is the effect of the appointment of a GAL and why do GAL’s seem to linger for years?

Posted on by

Dear Readers;

One of the issues that KDD and many, many others have brought up is why are GAL’s running around the courtroom and billing the estate long after a temp guardian and even plenary guardian has been appointed?  It makes no sense, and perhaps we need a change in law on that–that GAL’s need to be discharged once a plenary guardian has been appointed, UNLESS there is a motion to terminate the present guardian pending.  It seems to me these GAL’s hang out too long after a PG has been appointed, often churn up dissent in a family, and bill, bill, bill.

A GAL is appointed to be the eyes and ears of the court. They are supposed to be an independent third party that reports back to the court 1) if they think a guardian needs to be appointed based upon simple questions regarding the estate of the person and finances; 2) if the person objects to the guardianship and wants an atty; 3) who the Respondent wants to have appointed as guardian, if one is to be appointed; 4) if there is in fact a POA appointing a guardian over financial matters and the person; etc.

Of course, we KNOW this is often not going on.  Many people report back the Respondent in a Petition for Guardianship wants an atty, objects to the guardianship, objects to where she is living, and wants to go home. It’s a huge, huge issue in guardianships.

But one the appointment is over, the guardian is supposed to marshal the assets, fight off litigation, conduct a proper inventory and accounting and manage the estate and person properly.

Far too often, the probate courts are using the GAL’s to take sides and churn up problems after a favored GAL has been appointed.

See KDD”s comments below.
JoAnne

From KDD:

I thought this section would interest you.   Farenga and Stern say that they are acting for Mary –  why?   Their function is quite different.
Why are the GALs functioning at this point in time?   They are duplicating the work that is assigned to the plenary guardian.   If these were the eyes and ears of the Court and functioning as the same they should have been with Carolyn when she opened the safety deposit box.   They would have then seen her remove the large bag of gold coins and other collectibles that were worth a million dollars.     As the valuable collectibles were not inventoried they had a duty to report the missing valuables.   It is presumed that one or both of them (Farenga/Stern) was present doing his/her job when the ‘converted’ assets were removed.
Ken Ditkowsky
for more information, see:
1    Wing v. Dodge, 80 Ill. 564, 1875 WL 8798 (1875).2    Hoit v. Snodgrass, 315 Ill. 548, 146 N.E. 562 (1925); Skontos v. Gekas, 32 Ill. App. 2d 330, 177 N.E.2d 873 (1st Dist. 1961).3    Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

4    Lewis v. Hill, 387 Ill. 542, 56 N.E.2d 619 (1944).

5    Lewis v. Hill, 387 Ill. 542, 56 N.E.2d 619 (1944).

6    Bradshaw v. Lucas, 214 Ill. App. 218, 1919 WL 1599 (3d Dist. 1919).
Differing result after appointment of one who is only guardian ad litem, see In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).

7    Bradshaw v. Lucas, 214 Ill. App. 218, 1919 WL 1599 (3d Dist. 1919) (requiring trustee of spendthrift trust to pay income to guardian).

8    In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).

9    755 ILCS 5/11a-14.1, as amended by Illinois P.A. 90-250, effective July 29, 1997.
Duly appointed Public Guardians and the Office of the State Guardian have the power to admit a ward to a residential facility.

10    755 ILCS 5/11a-17, as amended by Illinois P.A. 90-250, effective July 29, 1997.

11    755 ILCS 5/11a-22.
See In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992); Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

12    755 ILCS 5/11a-22.
See In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992); Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

13    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a).
See also Chapter concerning the Rights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities of Guardians.

14    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a).

15    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a-5).
See also Chapter detailing the Rights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities of Guardians.

Leave a comment