divorce and guardianship

7/31/2019 Divorce and Guardianship

1/42

HOT TOPICS FOR THE INCAPACITATED:

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, ESTATE PLANNING, SEEKING

RESTORATION AND OTHER ACTIONS BY PERSONS SUBJECT

TO A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING

AuthorSARAH PATEL PACHECO

CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C.Five Houston Center

1401 McKinney, Suite 1700Houston, Texas 77010-4035

(713) 752-8630(713) 658-1921 (Facsimile)[email protected]

State Bar of TexasADVANCED GUARDIANSHIP LAW COURSE

April 8, 2011Houston

CHAPTER 10.3


2/42


3/42

Sarah Patel Pacheco 2004

SARAH PATEL PACHECO

Crain, Caton & James, P.C.1401 McKinney, 17th FloorHouston, Texas [email protected]

(713) 752-8630(713) 658-1921 (facsimile)

Admitted to the State Bar of Texas; November 1993

Admitted to practice before the Southern District of Texas; July 1995Board Certified: Estate Planning and Probate Law; December 1998

Legal Education

Doctor of Jurisprudence: May 1993,Southern Methodist University, School of Law, Dallas, Texas

Undergraduate Education

Bachelor of Accounting: May 1990,University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas

Employment

1/1/1999 - present Crain, Caton & James, P.C., Shareholder; representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries in trialand appellate courts in the State of Texas in matters relating to probate and trustadministration and litigation including, but not limited to, will contests, will and trustinterpretation issues, accounting and administration issues, prosecution and defense ofvarious fiduciary claims, representation of creditors in probate and trust proceedings,representing applicants and contestants in guardianship proceedings, representing personalrepresentatives, trustees, beneficiaries, and guardians in matters relating to the administrationof estates, trusts, and guardianships, preparation of death tax returns and related matters,drafting will, trusts, ancillary documents and related estate planning documents, and related

estate tax matters.

8/23/93 - 12/31/98 Cenatiempo & Gardner, P.C., Attorney; fiduciary representation, representing fiduciaries,beneficiaries, creditors and others in matters relating to probate, guardianship, and trustadministration and litigation, preparation of death tax returns, representation of creditors inprobate proceedings, estate planning and related tax matters.

Publications

Co-Author: West Publishing: Texas Probate Practice GuideCo-Author: West Publishing: Texas Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning Practice GuideAssociate Editor: State Bar of Texas: Texas Guardianship Manual

Professional Activities & Awards

Associations Houston Bar Association; Council Member, Probate, Trust & Estate& Bar Activities: Section, 2000-2005

Houston Young Lawyers Association; Fellow (elected 2000) & Co-Chair of Elder LawCommittee (1998- 2003)

Houston Bar Association; Lawyers Assisting Military Personnel (2001- present)Texas Young Lawyers Association; Needs of Senior Citizens Committee (1999-2003)State Bar of Texas; State Bar of Texas Guardianship Manual Committee (1997-present)Generation-X Estate Planning Forum; Member (1999-present)Houston Estate and Financial Forum;


4/42


Women Attorneys in Tax and Probate; Vice President, Programs (2000-2001), C.L.E.Officer (1999-2000)

Disabilities & Elder Law Attorneys; MemberAmerican Bar Association: Real Property, Probate and Trust Law and Litigation Sections;

Member (1993-present)State Bar of Texas: Course Director; Building Block of Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning,

January 2003, and numerous planning committeesTexas Rising Star (2004)Texas Super Lawyer (2004)

Speeches & Articles

Speaker/Author: University of Houston School of Law; Wills & Probate Institute. Topic: DependentAdministrations; May 2004.

Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Fiduciary Litigation. Topic: Guardianships: Recognizing VariousFiduciary Relationships, Duties & Issues that Commonly Arise in GuardianshipProceedings and Related Litigation; May 2004.

Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Elder Law Institute. Topic: What Can a Ward Do?; April 2004Speaker: State Bar of Texas; Building Blocks of Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning. Topic:

Administration of Estates and Trusts; January 2004.Speaker/Author: Tarrant County Probate Bar Association 2nd Annual Probate Litigation Seminar. Topic:

Settlement Agreements; Considerations When Negotiating, Drafting & EnforcingSettlement Agreements. October 2003

Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 27th Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course. Topic:Peace Treaties: Considerations When Negotiating, Drafting & Enforcing Settlement

Agreements; June 2003.Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; Elder Law Estate Planning, Special Needs Trusts and

Guardianships Program. Topic: Non Sense and Sensibilities - A Practical Review ofthe Procedural and Evidentiary Issues in Contested Guardianship Litigation and

Settlement; May 2003.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Texas Minority Attorney Program. Topic: Guardian Ad Litems:

Avoiding the Pitfalls; April 2003.Speaker/Author: Dallas Estate Planning Council. Topic: We All Become Inflexible When We Die: Pre-Death

Planning To Provide For Management, Flexibility, Control and Protection FromInterlopers; March 2003.Speaker/Author: 53rd Tennessee Federal Tax Institute. Topic: The Ethical, Legal & Practical

Considerations When Representing Clients With Questionable Capacity; December 2002.Speaker: Fort Bend Estate Planning Council. Topic: Court Created Section 867 Trusts as an

Alternative to Guardianship; August 2002.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 26th Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course. Topic:

What I Have Learned in the Guardianship Trenches; June 2002.Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; Representing the Elderly Client Institute. Topic: Case Law and

Statutory Update; May 2002.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Elder Law Institute. Topic: Advanced DirectivesBeyond the Basic

Forms; March 2002.

Speaker: State Bar of Texas; Building Block of Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning. Topic: ProbateLaw for Estate Planners Who Dont Do Probate; January 2002.Author: Texas Lawyer. Article. Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It: How to Manage the

Risks and Rewards as a Fiduciary; December 2001.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 12th Annual Advanced Drafting Course. Topic: Drafting for Incapacity

Going the Extra Mile for Your Client, November 2001.Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; 15th Annual Wills and Probate Institute. Topic: Guardianships

Litigation; September 2001.Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; 15th Annual Wills and Probate Institute. Topic: Duties of the

Attorney Ad Litem and the Guardian Ad Litem; September 2001.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 25th Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course. The Role

of the Ad Litem and Contested Issues; June 2001.


5/42


Speaker/Author: Southwestern Legal Foundation; 40th Annual Institute on Wills & Probate; ClientIncapacity or Questionable Capacity, May 2001.

Speaker: State Bar of Texas; Building Block of Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning. Topic: ProbateLaw for Estate Planners Who Dont Do Probate; January 2001.

Speaker/Author: University of Houston; Handling Insurance and Tort Claims. Topic:Dealing with Probate:Recognizing and Avoiding the Traps; December 2000.

Author: Houston Chronicle. Article: Good Estate Plan Includes More Than a Will , October 27,2000.

Speaker/Author: Houston Bar Association; Guardianship and Elder Law Issues For The Practitioner & Ad

Litem. Topic: Disqualification, Resignation and Removal of a Guardian; October 20,2000.

Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; 14th Annual Wills and Probate Institute. Topic: Current Issues inGuardianship Administration and Litigation; September 2000.

Author: State Bar of Texas Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Reporter, Vol. 38, No. 4. Article:The Preparation and Trial of Contested Guardianships; July, 2000.

Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 24th Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course. Topic:Contested Guardianships; June 2000.

Speaker/Author: Houston Bar Association; Wills & Probate Institute. Topic: Current Issues in GuardianshipLitigation; February, 2000.

Speaker/Author: San Antonio Young Lawyers Association; Docket Call in Probate Court 2000. Topic:Contested Guardianships; January, 2000.

Author: San Antonio Young Lawyers Association; Docket Call in Probate Court 2000. Topic:Howto Initiate a Guardianship; January, 2000.Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; 13th Annual Wills and Probate Institute. Topic: Peace Treaties;

Creation, Drafting and Enforcement Considerations; September 1999.Speaker HBA 1998-1999 Continuing Legal Education Programs. Topic: Alternatives to Formal

Probate, July 1999.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 23rd Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course.

Settlement Agreements; June 1999.Speaker: State Bar of Texas; Elder Law Institute. Ethics Panel:Ethical Issues in the Practice of Elder

Law; February 1999.Author: State Bar of Texas Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Reporter, Vol. 37, No. 2. Article:

The Preparation and Trial of Contested Guardianships; January, 1999.

Speaker: Houston Bar Association; Probate and Family Law Bench Bar Conference. Panel:Jurisdictional Overlap: A Judicial Face-Off; October 1998.Speaker/Author: University of Houston; Handling Insurance and Tort Claims. Topic:Dealing with Probate:

Recognizing and Avoiding the Traps; September 1998.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; 22nd Annual Advanced Estate Planning & Probate Law Course.

Contested Guardianships; June 1998.Speaker/Author: Houston Bar Association; Probate, Trusts & Estates Section. Topic: The Creation,

Administration, and Termination of Temporary Administrations; May 1998.Speaker: State Bar of Texas; Guardianship Institute. Topic: The ADA and its Application to the

Incapacitated Individual; February/March 1998.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Guardianship Institute. Topic: Contested Guardianships/ADR;

February/March 1998.

Author: Texas Lawyer. Article: Probates Top Ten Changes; January 1998.Speaker: Advanced Estate Planning and Probate Law Seminar for Attorneys, Legal Assistants andOther Professionals. Topic: Settlements and Trust Modifications: Tax Considerations;October 1997.

Speaker/Author: South Texas College Law; 11th Annual Wills and Probate Institute. Topic: GuardianshipLaws: The Basics; September 1997.

Speaker/Author: University of Houston; Handling Insurance and Tort Claims. Topic:Dealing with Probate:Recognizing and Avoiding the Traps; August/September 1997.

Author: Texas Lawyer. Article: Representing the Potentially Incapacitated; April 1997.Speaker/Author: State Bar of Texas; Wills & Probate. Topic: Guardianships: Guardianship of Estate and

Person, and Ad Litem Appointments; February 1997.Author: Texas Lawyer. Article: Avoiding Sudden Death in Probate Court; September 1996.


6/42


Author: University of Houston; Handling Insurance and Tort Claims. Topic: Dealing with Probate:The Ten Worst Traps (or How to Avoid Sudden Death in the Probate Courts); September1996.

Author: Houston Bar Association; Guardianships and Ad Litems in the Probate Courts. Topic:Trying a Contested Guardianship; September 1995.

Author: University of Houston; Handling Insurance and Tort Claims. Topic: Dealing with Probate:The Ten Worst Traps; August 1995.


7/42

Hot Topics For The Incapacitated: Marriage, Divorce,

Estate Planning, Seeking Restoration and Other Actions By Chapter 10.3

Sarah Patel Pacheco 2004 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SCOPE OF ARTICLE .................................................................................................................................................... 1

II. OVERVIEW OF TEXAS GUARDIANSHIPS .......................................................................................................... 1A. A Little History ..................................................................................................................................... 1B. Current Public Policy Regarding Texas Guardianships ........................................................................ 1

III. THE TYPE, TERM AND SCOPE OF GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING IMPACTS WARDSRIGHTS & POWERS..................................................................................................................................................... 1A. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 1B. Types of Guardianships: Person vs. Estate .......................................................................................... 1

1. Guardianship of the Person ...................................................................................................... 12. Guardianship of the Estate ....................................................................................................... 2

C. Term of Guardianship: Temporary vs. Permanent ............................................................................... 21. Temporary Guardianships ........................................................................................................ 22. Permanent Guardianships ........................................................................................................ 3

D. Scope of Guardianship: Limited vs. Total ............................................................................................ 31. Limited or Partial Guardianships ............................................................................................. 3

2. Total or Full Guardianships ..................................................................................................... 3

IV. RECOGNIZE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CAPACITY ............................................................................. 4A. General Overview ................................................................................................................................. 4B. Capacity as it Relates to Financial Transactions and Contracts ............................................................ 4C. Capacity as it Relates to Guardianships ................................................................................................ 4D. Capacity as it Relates to Testamentary Instruments ............................................................................. 4E. Presumptions Of Capacity Or Lack Of Capacity .................................................................................. 5

1. No Adjudication of Incapacity ................................................................................................. 52. Adjudication of Incapacity ....................................................................................................... 5

F. Effect on Determination of Lack of Capacity on Contract ................................................................... 61. Effect of Inability to Overcome Presumption of Incapacity .................................................... 6

2. Contract Voidable Not Void .................................................................................................... 6

V. WARDS ABILITY TO EXERCISE CERTAIN PERSONAL RIGHTS AND POWERS WHILESUBJECT TO A GUARDIANSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 6A. General Overview ................................................................................................................................. 6B. Wills & Similar Estate Planning Documents ........................................................................................ 7

1. General Overview .................................................................................................................... 72. Seeking Permission/Clarification for Ward to Execute a Will ................................................ 83. Wards Right to Engage Counsel ............................................................................................. 8

C. Marriage ................................................................................................................................................ 81. General Overview .................................................................................................................... 82. Seeking Permission/Clarification of Wards Right to Marry................................................... 9

3. Consider Negotiating a Premarital Agreement ........................................................................ 9D. Divorce ................................................................................................................................................ 10

1. General Overview .................................................................................................................. 102. Seek Authority for Ward To Divorce .................................................................................... 10

E. Seeking Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 111. Wards Right To Seek Restoration ........................................................................................ 112. Wards Right To Engage Counsel To Seek Restoration ........................................................ 113. Considerations Before Accepting Representation ................................................................. 124. Challenging Attorneys Standing to Represent Ward ............................................................ 125. Payment of Legal Fees ........................................................................................................... 13

F. Contracts ............................................................................................................................................. 131. General Rule .......................................................................................................................... 13


8/42



Sarah Patel Pacheco 2004 ii

2. Exceptions to General Rule ................................................................................................... 133. Dealing With the Voidable Contract ...................................................................................... 13

G. Driving ................................................................................................................................................ 13H. Voting ................................................................................................................................................. 14

VI. WARDS ABILITY TO BE SUBJECTED TO CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS ..................................................... 14A. Compelling Wards Deposition .......................................................................................................... 14B. Criminal Proceedings Against A Ward ............................................................................................... 14

VII. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................................. 15

VIII. EXHIBITS...................................................................................................................................................................... 17A. Exhibit A: Application For Authority To Retain Estate Planning Counsel ........................................ 17B. Exhibit B: Order Authorizing Ward To Retain Estate Planning Counsel ........................................... 18C. Exhibit C: Application For Authority To Execute Premarital Agreement And For Ward To

Ceremonially Marry ............................................................................................................................ 19D. Exhibit D: Order Granting Application For Authority To Execute Premarital Agreement And

For Ward To Ceremonially Marry ...................................................................................................... 21E. Exhibit E: Application For Partial Restoration Of Ward .................................................................... 22F. Exhibit F: Order Partially Restoring Ward And Amended Powers Of The Guardian Of The

Person And Estate ............................................................................................................................... 26G. Exhibit G: Application For Restoration Of Total Capacity ................................................................ 29H. Exhibit H: Application For Authority To Represent Ward In Seeking Restoration Or A

Partial Restoration ............................................................................................................................... 31I. Exhibit I: Order Granting Authority To Represent Ward In A Restoration Or A Partial

Restoration Proceeding ....................................................................................................................... 33


9/42



1 Sarah Patel Pacheco 2004

HOT TOPICS FOR THE

INCAPACITATED:

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, ESTATE

PLANNING, SEEKING RESTORATION

AND OTHER ACTIONS BY PERSONS

SUBJECT TO A GUARDIANSHIP

PROCEEDING

I. SCOPE OF ARTICLE

In the last few years, one of the hot topics inguardianship proceedings is what the ward can doafter his or her adjudication. While guardianshipsare designed to shift certain legal rights from theward to his or her guardian, some rights cannot beor should not be shifted. The most predominate ofthese are based on the wards personal relationshipssuch as marriage and divorce. They also extend tocertain forms of estate planning by the ward. This

outline generally focuses on those rights that arepersonal to the ward and the affect of anadjudication of incapacity on the wards ability tovalidly exercise those rights and powers. It alsoincludes a discussion of when a ward may retaincertain rights and take certain actionsnotwithstanding his or her adjudication ofincapacity.

Finally, a few forms are attached as examplesto this outline. As with any form, they can beutilized as a guide; however, they should becarefully tailored to the specifics of the case.

References to the Probate Code and Section areto the Texas Probate Code, except as otherwisestated.

II. OVERVIEW OF TEXAS

GUARDIANSHIPS

A. A Little HistoryFor decades, the statutes that regulated

decedents estates also governed guardianships.These sections did not address the specific needs ofindividuals subject to a guardianship or allow thecourts and guardians the flexibility to custom tailor

a guardianship to the particular needs andlimitations of each ward. Until 1983, Texasgenerally recognized only two types ofguardianships: temporary and permanent. SeeBreaux v. Allied Bank of Texas, 699 S.W.2d 599,602 (Tex.App.Houston[14th Dist.] 1985, writrefd n.r.e.) (discusses types of guardianships priorto 1983).

In 1983, Texas enacted former Section 130Awhich, for the first time, statutorily recognizedlimited guardianship proceedings i.e., an

incapacitated person is not presumed to beincompetent and retains all legal and civil rights andpowers except those granted to the limitedguardian. Id. at699 S.W.2d at 602 (citing formerTEX. PROB. CODE ANN. 130A (Vernon Supp.1985)).

In a continued effort to address and furtherup-date the entire guardianship structure, theTexas legislature completely revamped the ProbateCode in 1993. This resulted in the removal of theguardianship statutes from their inclusion withdecedents estates and the other probate statutes. Atthat time, they expanded the concept of limitedguardianship proceedings. In every subsequentlegislative session, we have seen significantrevisions or additions to the guardianship sectionsof the Texas Probate Code.

B. Current Public Policy Regarding Texas

Guardianships

Although there is no statutory definition of aguardianship, Section 602 provides that thepolicy and purpose of a guardianship is to grantanother person or entity limited authority over anincapacitated person to the extent required by suchpersons mental and/or physical limitations. Afterthe statutory revisions of 1993, the Code expresslyprovides that a Guardians authority should belimited to that necessary to promote and protect the

incapacitated person. Likewise, a guardianshipshould be designed to encourage the maintenanceand development of self-reliance and independence

of the incapacitated person. TEX. PROB. CODEANN. 602 (Vernon 2003). Post 1993, a wardretains all legal and civil rights and powers exceptthose designated by court order as legal disabilitiesby virtue of having been specifically granted to theguardian. TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon2003) (emphasis added).

III. THE TYPE, TERM AND SCOPE OF

GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING

IMPACTS WARDS RIGHTS & POWERSA. Overview.

The type and scope of the guardianshipproceeding impacts a wards rights andpresumptions regarding his or her capacity. Whilea detailed discussion of guardianship proceedings isbeyond the scope of this outline, a brief discussionof these matters follows.

B. Types of Guardianships: Person vs. Estate.

1. Guardianship of the PersonSection 767 grants the guardian of the person

the right and duty to provide care to and control of
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01


10/42




the ward, subject to any limitations set by the court.Specifically, Section 767 provides that the guardianof the person has the right to have physicalpossession of the ward and to establish the wardslegal domicile, the duty of care, control, andprotection of the ward and to provide the ward withclothing, food, medical care, shelter, and the powerto consent to the medical, psychiatric, and surgicaltreatment other than in-patient psychiatriccommitment of the ward. See TEX. PROB. CODEANN. 767(1)-(4) (Vernon 2003).

If a ward is found to lack capacity to handleany of his or her personal matters, the guardianwould have full authority to handle such mattersand the ward is presumed to have no legal right tomake such decisions. If, however, a ward is notfound to be totally incapacitated (either expresslyby the court or pursuant to the current presumptiondiscussed supra) to handle his personal affairs, award retains all civil rights and powers notexpressly revoked or granted to a guardian of hisperson. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon2003).

2. Guardianship of the EstateSection 768 provides that a guardian of the

estate is entitled to the possession and managementof all property belonging to the ward, to collect alldebts, rentals, or claims that are due to the ward, toenforce all obligations in favor of the ward, and tobring and defend suits by or against the ward,subject to the provisions of the Probate Code. TEX.

PROB.CODE ANN. 768 (Vernon 2003).If a ward is found to lack capacity to handle

any and all of his or her financial matters, theguardian would have full authority to handle suchmatters and the ward is presumed to have no legalright to bind his estate. If, however, a ward is notfound to be totally incapacitated (either expresslyby the court or pursuant to the current presumptiondiscussed supra) to handle his estate, a ward mayretain certain civil rights and powers relating to hisestate. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon2003).

C. Term of Guardianship: Temporary vs.

Permanent.

1. Temporary GuardianshipsIn certain limited circumstances, a court may

appoint a temporary guardian if it is presented withsubstantial evidence that a person may beincapacitated and requires the immediateappointment of a guardian. TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 875(a)(Vernon 2003). The intended purpose of atemporary guardianship is to protect the proposed

wards health and well being, and/or preserve theestate until it can pass into the hands of a permanentguardian, the situation giving rise to the temporaryguardianship is resolved by a less restrictivealternative, or the court has the opportunity todetermine the proposed ward is not incapacitated.

To balance the civil rights of the personalleged to be incapacitated with the ability toprotect him or her, the Probate Code now limitsboth the circumstances under which a temporaryguardian can be appointed and the powers andduties of the temporary guardian. Section 875(g)provides as follows:

If at the conclusion of the [affirmation]hearing . . . the court determines that theapplicant has established that there issubstantial evidence that the person is aminor or other incapacitated person, thatthere is imminent danger that the physicalhealth or safety of the respondent will beseriously impaired, or that therespondents estate will be seriouslydamaged or dissipated unless immediateaction is taken, the court shall appoint atemporary guardian by written order. Thecourt shall assign to the temporaryguardian only those powers and dutiesthat are necessary to protect the

respondent against the imminent danger

shown. . . . The reasons for the temporaryguardianship and the powers and duties of

the temporary guardian must be describedin the order of appointment.

Id. at 875(g) (emphasis added).

Prior to September 1, 2003, Section 875(b)expressly stated that a person subject to a temporaryguardianship may not be presumed to beincapacitated; however, this language was removedin the last regular legislative session. Former875(b) mitigated the potential impact of atemporary guardianship on various presumptions in

light of the fact that a temporary was often an exparte proceeding without the requisite adjudicationof capacity. Now, Section 875(b) provides that aperson subject to a temporary guardianship retainsall rights and powers that are not specificallygranted to the persons temporary guardian by courtorder. Id. at 875(b). While the alleged legislativeintent was not to modify the resulting presumptions,time will tell how it is interpreted by the courts andwhether the appointment of a temporary guardian


11/42




will be admissible for purposes of evidencing apersons lack of capacity.

2. Permanent GuardianshipsThe majority of guardianships are permanent

guardianships. A permanent guardianship can beeither limited or total. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675, et seq. (Vernon 2003).

A permanent guardianship requires that a courtfind, by clear and convincing evidence, that (i) theward is an incapacitated person; (ii) it is in the bestinterest of the ward to have the court appoint aperson as guardian of the ward; and (iii) the rightsof the ward or the wards property will be protectedby the appointment of a guardian. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 684(a) (Vernon 2003). Beforeappointing a permanent guardian, the court mustalso find by a preponderance of the evidence that anadult ward is totally without capacity to care forhimself or herself and to manage the individuals

property, or the proposed ward lacks the capacity todo some, but not all, of the tasks necessary to carefor himself or herself or to manage the individualsproperty. Id. at 684(b). The proposed ward isentitled to a trial, either to the court or (if he or sherequests) to a jury. Upon the conclusion of the trial(whether to the court or jury), the court may appointa permanent guardian of the wards person and/orestate with either full or limited authority. Seediscussion infra.

D. Scope of Guardianship: Limited vs. Total.

If it is determined that a person lacks thecapacity to handle some, but not all, of the tasksnecessary to care for himself or herself or tomanage his or her property, a court may appoint aguardian with limited powers and permit the wardto retain certain rights commensurate with his or herabilities. See TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. 693(b)(Vernon 2003).

Furthermore, until a court finds that a ward istotally incapacitated and grants the guardian fullauthority over the wards person and estate, it ispresumed that he or she has retained all rights not

expressly granted to his or her guardian. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon 2003). (Note, asdiscussed previously, Texas has not alwaysrecognized this presumption. Therefore, reliance ondecisions prior to 1983 regarding a wards rightsand powers should be utilized with caution.)

1. Limited or Partial GuardianshipsA court may expressly create a limited or

partial guardianship. A limited guardianship mayalso be created by default if the applicant fails to

request a finding that the ward is totallyincapacitated or that the guardian be granted fullauthority. This arises as Section 675 provides thata ward retains all legal and civil rights and powersexcept those designated by court order as legaldisabilities by virtue of having been specificallygranted to the guardian. TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon 2003) (emphasis added). Therefore, alimited guardianship may be created by seekingonly a guardianship of an individuals personwithout expressly seeking a guardianship of thepersons estate. It may also be created upon findingby the court that the alleged ward lacks capacity tohandle his or her financial matters but a leastrestrictive alternative exists, i.e., a power ofattorney, trust, etc. To determine a wards rights orlack thereof, it is important to carefully review theorder of appointment to determine what findingswere made by the court regarding the type andextent of the wards capacity and the extent of the

guardians powers.

2. Total or Full GuardianshipsThe court may create a total or full

guardianship upon a finding that a person is totallyunable to perform any task necessary to care forhimself or herself, or his or her property. In orderto appoint a permanent guardian, the court mustfirst find by clear and convincing evidence that theward is an incapacitated person. TEX. PROB.CODE ANN. 693 (Vernon 2003). The ProbateCode defines an incapacitated person as an adult

individual who, because of a physical or mentalcondition, is substantially unable to provide food,clothing, or shelter for himself or herself, to care forthe individuals own physical health, or to managethe individuals own financial affairs. TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 601(14) (Vernon 2003).

Similar to a limited guardianship, a total or fullguardianship may be granted over a wards personand/or estate. The creation of a total or fullguardianship of the person or estate does notautomatically result in the presumption that a wardlacks the capacity to act with regard to the other.

Therefore, the appointment of a full guardianshipover a wards estate does not result in the loss of thewards legal right to make medical decisions andvice versa. To determine whether the ward retainedany rights to make personal or financial decisions, itis imperative to carefully review the order ofappointment to determine what findings the courtmade.


12/42




IV. RECOGNIZE APPLICABLE

STANDARDS OF CAPACITY

A. General Overview.

To date, Texas courts have not adopted asingle, bright-line test to determine whether anindividual has capacity to engage in certaintransactions. Rather, the applicable standard ofcapacity or incapacity is dependent on the specificfacts or transactions contemplated by the individual.Thus, an individual may have capacity to engage incertain transactions, but not others. The mostfrequently encountered standards of capacity arediscussed below.

B. Capacity as it Relates to Financial

Transactions and Contracts.

In Texas, a person has mental capacity tocontract if, at the time of contracting, heappreciated the effect of what [he] was doing andunderstood the nature and consequences of [his]acts and the business [he] was transacting.Mandell& Wright v. Thomas, 441 S.W.2d 841, 845 (Tex.1969); see also Bach v. Hudson, 596 S.W.2d 673,675-76 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1980, nowrit); Board of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. v.Yarbrough, 470 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1971, writ refd n.r.e.). The requisite mentalcapacity depends on the contemplated transaction.A person may have sufficient capacity to enter intocertain contracts, agreements, etc., but not others.Mental capacity, or a lack thereof, may be shownby circumstantial evidence, including:

a persons outward conduct,manifesting an inward and causingcondition;

any pre-existing external circumstancestending to produce a special mentalcondition; and

the prior or subsequent existence of amental condition from which a personsmental capacity (or incapacity) at thetime in question may be inferred.

See Bach, 596 S.W.2d at 676.

The question of whether a person, at the timeof contracting, knows or understands the nature andconsequences of his actions is generally an issue forthe trier of fact. See Fox v. Lewis, 344 S.W.2d 731,739 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1961, writ refd n.r.e.).However, allegations that a person is merelynervous, appears tense or anxious, or has personalproblems, is not sufficient to raise a fact issue as towhether a person lacked capacity. See Schmaltz v.

Walder, 566 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Civ.App.--CorpusChristi 1978, writ refd n.r.e.); Mandell & Wright v.Thomas, 441 S.W.2d 841, 845 (Tex. 1969). Rather,relevant evidence may include evidence of prioractions, conduct, utterances, and transactions of aperson whose mental capacity is in question.Bach, 596 S.W.2d at 677 (citingMiguez v. Miguez,221 S.W.2d 293, 295-96 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont1949, no writ); Carr v. Radkey, 393 S.W.2d 806(Tex. 1965); Buhidar v. Abernathy, 541 S.W.2d648, 651 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1976, writrefd n. r. e.)).

C. Capacity as it Relates to Guardianships.

For guardianship purposes, Section 601 of theProbate Code defines an incapacitated person toinclude an adult individual who, because of aphysical or mental condition, is substantially unableto provide food, clothing, or shelter for himself orherself, to care for the individuals own physical

health, or to manage the individuals own financialaffairs. TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. 601(14)(Vernon 2003). Evidence of a physical or mentalcondition must be based on reoccurring acts oroccurrences within the preceding six (6) monthperiod and not based on a single action oroccurrence. See TEX. PROB. CODE ANN 684(c)(Vernon 2003).

D. Capacity as it Relates to Testamentary

Instruments.

Section 57 of the Probate Code mandates that

the test for testamentary capacity includes therequirement that the testator be of sound mind.TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. 57 (Vernon 2003).Sound mind is referred to both commonly and inTexas case law as testamentary capacity eventhough Section 57 does impose other requirements.The sound mind element of testamentary capacitymeans that at the time the testator signs the will, heor she has sufficient mental capacity to:

understandthe business in which he or sheis engaged;

know the general nature and extent of hisor her property;

understandthe effect of the act of makinga will;

know the persons to whom he or shewishes to give their property to and thepersons dependent upon him or her forsupport; and

collectin his or her mind the elements ofbusiness to be transacted in executing thewill and hold them long enough to
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=441&edition=S.W.2d&page=841&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=470&edition=S.W.2d&page=86&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=344&edition=S.W.2d&page=731&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=566&edition=S.W.2d&page=81&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=441&edition=S.W.2d&page=841&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=221&edition=S.W.2d&page=293&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=393&edition=S.W.2d&page=806&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=541&edition=S.W.2d&page=648&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=541&edition=S.W.2d&page=648&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=541&edition=S.W.2d&page=648&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=541&edition=S.W.2d&page=648&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=393&edition=S.W.2d&page=806&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=221&edition=S.W.2d&page=293&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=441&edition=S.W.2d&page=841&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=566&edition=S.W.2d&page=81&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=344&edition=S.W.2d&page=731&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=470&edition=S.W.2d&page=86&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=441&edition=S.W.2d&page=841&id=135857_01


13/42




perceive their obvious relationship to eachother and to form a reasonable judgment

about them.

See Tieken v. Midwestern State Univ., 912 S.W.2d

878 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1995, no writ)

(emphasis added) (citing Prather v. McClelland, 13

S.W. 543, 546 (Tex. 1890)); see also McNaley v.

Sealy, 122 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin

1938, writ dismd); Horton v. Horton, 965 S.W.2d

78, 85 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no writ)

(courts generally limit evidence regarding testators

capacity to time period surrounding will execution).

It is generally accepted that less mental

capacity is required to make a valid will than to

make a valid contract. See Rudersdorf v. Bowers,

112 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1937,writ dismd w.o.j.);Hamill v. Brashear, 513 S.W.2d

602 (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1974, writ refd

n.r.e.). The tests regarding capacity to contract are

generally not applied in determining the question of

testamentary capacity. See Venner v. Layton, 244

S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1951, writ refd

n.r.e.). There remains some authority, however,

suggesting otherwise. A few Texas courts have

held that the legal standards for determining the

existence of mental capacity for purposes of

executing a will are substantially the same as themental capacity for executing a contract. Bach v.

Hudson, 596 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Civ.App.Corpus

Christi 1980) (discussed supra).

The issue of whether a person has testamentary

capacity is usually a question of fact. See Smith v.Welch, 285 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.Civ.App.Texarkana1955, writ refd n.r.e.). No particular standard is

prescribed. See Farmer v. Dodson, 326 S.W.2d 57

(Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1959); see also Brown v.

Mitchell, 12 S.W. 606 (Tex. 1889); Garrison v.

Blanton, 48 Tex. 299 (1877); Wilson v. Estate ofWilson, 593 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas

1979);Anderson v. Clingingsmith, 369 S.W.2d 634

(Tex.Civ. App.Fort Worth 1963, writ refd

n.r.e.); Nowlin v. Trottman, 348 S.W.2d 169

(Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1961, writ refd n.r.e.);

Green v. Dickson, 208 S.W.2d 119(Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1948, writ refd n.r.e.).

It is notable that although lack of testamentary

capacity may appear to imply lack of intelligent

mental power, it is not necessary for a person to be

highly intelligent to dispose of his or her property

by will. See Bell v. Bell, 237 S.W.2d 688

(Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1951, no writ);Lowery v.

Saunders, 666 S.W.2d 226 (Tex.Civ.App.San

Antonio 1984, writ refd n.r.e.). Rather, lack of

education or proof of illiteracy has little, if any,

bearing on mental capacity to make a will. Oliver

v. Williams, 381 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.Civ.App.

Corpus Christi 1964, no writ).

E. Presumptions Of Capacity Or Lack Of

Capacity.

1. No Adjudication of Incapacity.

a. Presumption of Capacity.

Generally, mental capacity is determined at the

time the document at issue is executed or the person

enters into a transaction. Therefore, unless a person

has been adjudicated to be incapacitated when the

attorney is retained, the trust was created, the will

was executed, etc., the law presumes sufficient

mental capacity to enter into the transaction. See

Estate of Galland v. Rosenberg, 630 S.W.2d 294,

297 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writrefd n.r.e.).

b. Presumption of Capacity Can Be Rebutted.

The presumption of capacity may be overcome

with relevant and credible evidence. An

adjudication that a person was totally or partially

incapacitated entered after the date of the will or

contract, however, is generally not admissible as

evidence on the question of capacity. See Carr v.

Radkey, 393 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. 1965). For example,

in Stephen v. Coleman, the testator signed his willthree days before being adjudicated incompetent.

The subsequent adjudication did not raise any

presumption of lack of testamentary capacity. See

Stephen v. Coleman, 533 S.W.2d 444

(Tex.Civ.App.Fort Worth 1976, writ refd n.r.e.).

2. Adjudication of Incapacity.

a. Presumption of Incapacity.

An adjudication of the testators incapacity

prior to the execution of a will or contract is

typically admissible on the issue of the testators

mental capacity. See Haile v. Holtzclaw, 414

S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1967). For example, when the

adjudication remains in effect on the date the will

was executed, the testator will generally be

presumed to lack testamentary capacity. SeeBogel

v. White, 168 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1942, writ refd). This presumption may

be overcome by evidence of the requisite capacity.Id. at 311.

b. Presumption of Incapacity Can Be Rebutted.

A determination of incapacity does not,

however, automatically result in a person lacking

sufficient capacity to execute any document or

instrument or enter into any transaction. Each of

these proposed actions must be determined based
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=912&edition=S.W.2d&page=878&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=912&edition=S.W.2d&page=878&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=122&edition=S.W.2d&page=330&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=965&edition=S.W.2d&page=78&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=965&edition=S.W.2d&page=78&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=112&edition=S.W.2d&page=784&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=513&edition=S.W.2d&page=602&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=513&edition=S.W.2d&page=602&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=244&edition=S.W.2d&page=852&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=244&edition=S.W.2d&page=852&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=285&edition=S.W.2d&page=823&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=326&edition=S.W.2d&page=57&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=593&edition=S.W.2d&page=789&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=369&edition=S.W.2d&page=634&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=348&edition=S.W.2d&page=169&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=208&edition=S.W.2d&page=119&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=237&edition=S.W.2d&page=688&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=666&edition=S.W.2d&page=226&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=381&edition=S.W.2d&page=703&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=630&edition=S.W.2d&page=294&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=393&edition=S.W.2d&page=806&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=533&edition=S.W.2d&page=444&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=414&edition=S.W.2d&page=916&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=414&edition=S.W.2d&page=916&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=168&edition=S.W.2d&page=309&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=168&edition=S.W.2d&page=309&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=414&edition=S.W.2d&page=916&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=414&edition=S.W.2d&page=916&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=533&edition=S.W.2d&page=444&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=393&edition=S.W.2d&page=806&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=630&edition=S.W.2d&page=294&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=381&edition=S.W.2d&page=703&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=666&edition=S.W.2d&page=226&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=237&edition=S.W.2d&page=688&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=208&edition=S.W.2d&page=119&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=348&edition=S.W.2d&page=169&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=369&edition=S.W.2d&page=634&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=593&edition=S.W.2d&page=789&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=326&edition=S.W.2d&page=57&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=285&edition=S.W.2d&page=823&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=596&edition=S.W.2d&page=673&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=244&edition=S.W.2d&page=852&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=244&edition=S.W.2d&page=852&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=513&edition=S.W.2d&page=602&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=513&edition=S.W.2d&page=602&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=112&edition=S.W.2d&page=784&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=965&edition=S.W.2d&page=78&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=965&edition=S.W.2d&page=78&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=122&edition=S.W.2d&page=330&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=912&edition=S.W.2d&page=878&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=912&edition=S.W.2d&page=878&id=135857_01


14/42




these proposed actions must be determined basedon the particular facts, circumstances, time frames,and abilities of the person subject to a guardianship.As previously discussed, under the currentguardianship laws, persons under a temporaryguardianship are presumed to retain all rights notgranted to the temporary guardian. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 875(b) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2004).Similarly, a ward subject to a permanentguardianship is presumed to retain all rights notexpressly granted to his or her guardian. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon 2003).

F. Effect on Determination of Lack of

Capacity on Contract.

1. Effect of Inability to Overcome Presumptionof Incapacity.If it is determined that a contract was

executed by a person who does not have themental capacity to contract, the contract is voidable;and if such person signed a contract withoutsufficient mental capacity to understand the natureand consequences thereof, the contract is notbinding and may be set aside. See Schmaltz v.Walder, 566 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Civ.App.--CorpusChristi 1978, writ refd n.r.e.). Likewise, adetermination that a will was executed at a time thetestator lacked capacity will result in its failure tobe admitted to probate or its probate to be set aside.See discussion supra.

2. Contract Voidable Not Void.

A contract with an incapacitated person isvoidable at the election of the incapacitated personor his or her authorized representative. It is notautomatically void. See Price v. Golden, 2000 WL1228681 (Tex. App.Austin 2000, no writ)(notdesignated for publication) citing Williams v.Sapieha, 61 S.W. 115, 116 (Tex. 1901); Knox v.Drews, 202 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1947, writ dismd); Breaux, 699 S.W.2d at603; Gaston v. Copeland, 335 S.W.2d 406, 409(Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1960, writ refd n.r.e.).

Unlike a contract that is void, a voidable

contract continues in effect until active steps aretaken to disaffirm it. See Price v. Golden, 2000 WL1228681 citing Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. 1989) (voidable contractmay be valid and subsisting, interference withwhich may be tortious); Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v.Brazil, 10 S.W. 403, 406 (Tex. 1888) (voidablecontract only obligatory until in some mannerrepudiated or annulled); Chilton Ins. Co. v. Pate &Pate Enters., Inc., 930 S.W.2d 877, 888 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (misrepresentation

renders contract voidable by innocent party;innocent party cannot excuse non-performance aftertreated contract as continuing after other partycommitted material breach); BLACKS LAWDICTIONARY 1573-74 (6th ed. 1990).

Thus, the failure of a guardian or other legalrepresentative to disaffirm a contract entered intoby a proposed ward or ward may allow for theenforcement of the contract. See Breaux, 699S.W.2d at 603 citing Knox v. Drews, 202 S.W.2d335 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1947, writ dismd). Theact of disaffirming the contract must be distinct andunequivocal. See Breaux, 699 S.W.2d at 603citingHatton v. Bodan Lumber Co., 123 S.W. 163, 168(Tex.Civ.App. 1909, writ refd). See discussioninfra.

V. WARDS ABILITY TO EXERCISE CER-

TAIN PERSONAL RIGHTS AND

POWERS WHILE SUBJECT TO A

GUARDIANSHIP

A. General Overview.As discussed previously, historically a person

subject to a guardianship was presumed to lose hisor her rights to engage in most transactions andmake most decisions. The 1983 and more recentlythe 1993 amendments to the Probate Code havereversed this presumption. Now, under Section675, an incapacitated person for whom a guardian isappointed retains all legal and civil rights andpowers except those designated by court order aslegal disabilities by virtue of having been

specifically granted to the guardian. See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 675 (Vernon 2003).

Therefore, a starting place to determine what award can (and cannot do) is the application forguardianship and related orders entered by thecourt. These should be thoroughly reviewed todetermine the following:

The term of guardianship sought temporary or permanent;

The type of guardianship sought estateand/or person;

Whether the applicant requested that thecourt find the ward totally incapacitated;

Whether the medical evidence admittedinto evidence established the ward lackedall ability or found that he or she couldhandle certain matters;

The findings made by the court inappointing a guardian;

The type of guardianship granted by thecourttemporary or permanent;
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=566&edition=S.W.2d&page=81&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=335&edition=S.W.2d&page=406&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=767&edition=S.W.2d&page=686&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=767&edition=S.W.2d&page=686&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=930&edition=S.W.2d&page=877&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=930&edition=S.W.2d&page=877&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=767&edition=S.W.2d&page=686&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=767&edition=S.W.2d&page=686&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=335&edition=S.W.2d&page=406&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=202&edition=S.W.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=566&edition=S.W.2d&page=81&id=135857_01


15/42




The scope of guardianship granted by thecourtestate and/or person; and

Whether the powers were enumerated orglobal.

These should be reviewed in light of the intendedaction by the ward. A discussion of some of the

more commonly encountered possible actionsfollows.

B. Wills & Similar Estate Planning

Documents.

1. General Overview.Issues involving a wards estate plan may be a

motivating force behind the pursuit of aguardianship but generally are not directlyaddressed in the guardianship proceeding. Theguardian can, however, take certain actions thataffect the wards estate plan. For example, non-probate accounts may be closed on the purportedbasis that the guardian is required to collect allassets, or that the funds were needed for the wardscare. See generally Plummer v. Estate of Plummer,51 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App. 2001)(attorney-in-factswho cashed in principals certificates of depositwith third party designated beneficiary anddeposited funds in new checking account actedwithin their delegated authority based on testimonythat they needed liquid assets to pay the nursinghome expenses of principal).

Furthermore, as to assets on hand at the time ofthe guardianship or subsequently received by gift,devise, inheritance, etc., the guardian of the estatemay retain such assets for one year from the date ofreceipt of the property (without additional courtapproval) without regard to diversification ofinvestments and without liability for anydepreciation or loss resulting from the retention.See TEX.PROB.CODE ANN. 855A (Vernon 2003& Supp. 2004). In certain circumstances (yet to bedetermined), the guardian may seek authority tocontinue to retain the property for more than oneyear if the retention can be justified as part of aninvestment plan. Newly enacted Section 855B

requires the guardian to file an investment planwithin 180 days of the guardians appointment thataddresses the long-term investment plan andidentifies assets that should be retained. Section855B(c) does not, however, provide any protectionfor specifically bequeathed or non-probate assets asit expressly provides as follows:

(c) The fact that an account or other asset is thesubject of a specific or general gift under award's will, if any, or that a ward has funds,

securities, or other property held with a right ofsurvivorship does not prevent:

(1) a guardian of the estate from takingpossession and control of the asset orclosing the account; or

(2) the court from authorizing an action ormodifying or eliminating a duty withrespect to the possession, control, orinvestment of the account or other asset.

See TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. 855B(c) (Vernon2003 & Supp. 2004).

Given the current landscape has increased theincentive for using a guardianship to meddle in awards estate plan, it is anticipated that the issue ofa wards right to execute a new will in aguardianship will need to be addressed on anincreasing basis. The issue of a right (or lackthereof) of a ward to execute estate-planningdocuments raises a number of legal and ethicalissues.

Unlike many actions, a guardian cannotexecute a will on behalf of a ward. Furthermore, anadjudication of incapacity does not automaticallyrender a ward unable to execute a will or othertestamentary document. To the contrary, thestandard for testamentary capacity may be less thanthat required to avoid a guardianship. The creationof a total guardianship is, however, primafaciaevidence that the ward was not competent to

execute a will or similar document. Often this canbe overcome with evidence that the ward hastestamentary capacity or evidence that theguardianship was limited and did not restrict thewards right to execute a will. Clement v. Rainey,50 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.Civ.App.Texarkana 1932,writ refd). A qualified psychiatrist or neurologistcan often determine the wards testamentarycapacity or ability to execute a will.

In the event a ward is determined to be totallyincapacitated, the chances on any testamentarydocument signed by ward being admitted to probate

are significantly reduced. When, however, a wardis found partially incapacitated, the wards ability toexecute a valid will may be affected by the findingsof the court in its order appointing the guardian. Ifthe order is silent on this issue, it appears that theward retains the ability to execute a will.
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=51&edition=S.W.3d&page=840&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=50&edition=S.W.2d&page=359&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=50&edition=S.W.2d&page=359&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=51&edition=S.W.3d&page=840&id=135857_01


16/42




2. Seeking Permission/Clarification for Ward toExecute a Will.When the right of a ward to execute a will is in

doubt, and he or she desire to execute a new will,the ward has two options. One is to simply executea new will or codicil without seeking express courtauthority and let his or her named executor dealwith the various potential objections andpresumptions. By doing so, it delays the issue andavoids a specific finding from the court that theward lacks capacity to execute a will.

Alternatively, the ward or the guardian canseek clarification from the court whether the wardhas the capacity and/or the right to do so. There aretwo advantages for doing so. First, it potentiallyremoves the presumption that the ward lacked thecapacity to execute the will if he or she is found tohave the requisite capacity to execute a will.Second, it allows the ward to engage anindependent lawyer to draft the required documentswithout concerns that the lawyer may face ethicalcomplaints relating to the representation. Thedisadvantage is that the court may instead find theward lacks capacity to execute a will.

3. Wards Right to Engage Counsel.While a ward will often arguably retain the

right to execute a will, he or she will often lack theright to engage counsel to draft the document.Thus, the wards desires may be frustrated as mostlawyers will be hesitant to agree to an engagementwith a person adjudicated to be incapacitated.

Furthermore, even if they agree to the engagement,the lawyer may have no way to compel payment.Breaux, 699 S.W.2d at 604 (estate planning serviceswere not necessities for which ward could contract).

The practical, albeit public solution, is foreither the ward and/or his or her guardian to seekcourt authority for the ward to engage estateplanning counsel. To do so, the court may require ashowing that the ward has the requisitetestamentary capacity. A qualified psychiatrist orneurologist may establish this. See discussionsupra. If the court is willing to enter an order

expressly finding that the ward has testamentarycapacity, the finding can be used to either avoid orrebut the presumption of incapacity establishedunder Texas common law addressing the formerTexas statutes.

Note, it is strongly suggested that the wardengage independent counsel. A claim of undueinfluence may arise if counsel for the guardiandrafts the wards will or the guardian is in any wayinvolved in the estate planning discussions.Furthermore, the ward may have sufficient capacity

to execute a will but still lack sufficient capacity toproperly waive any potential conflicts of interest.

A sample Application to Retain Estate PlanningCounsel and related order is attached as Exhibit Aand B to this outline.

C. Marriage.1. General Overview.

The issue of the right (or lack thereof) of award to marry has been raised with increasingfrequency in the last few years. The issue ofmarriage is, however, more complicated thanwhether he or she has the capacity to execute a will.It appears that there is no clear required level ofcapacity to marry. As to the concept of marriage asit relates to a wards desires for love and affection,one could argue that the requisite capacity isrelatively low. The capacity to understand theresulting marital property rights and obligations isarguably closer to contractual capacity. The TexasProbate Code does not expressly address the issueof a ward entering into a marriage. The onlystatutory guidance is found in Section 6.108 of theTexas Family Code, which provides as follows:

(a) The court may grant an annulment of amarriage to a party to the marriage on thesuit of the party or the party's guardian ornext friend, if the court finds it to be inthe party's best interest to be representedby a guardian or next friend, if:

(1) at the time of the marriage thepetitioner did not have the mentalcapacity to consent to marriage or tounderstand the nature of the marriageceremony because of a mentaldisease or defect; and

(2) since the marriage ceremony, thepetitioner has not voluntarilycohabited with the other party duringa period when the petitionerpossessed the mental capacity to

recognize the marriage relationship.

(b) The court may grant an annulment of amarriage to a party to the marriage if:

(1) at the time of the marriage the otherparty did not have the mentalcapacity to consent to marriage or tounderstand the nature of the marriageceremony because of a mentaldisease or defect;
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=699&edition=S.W.2d&page=599&id=135857_01


17/42




(2) at the time of the marriage thepetitioner neither knew norreasonably should have known of themental disease or defect; and

(3) since the date the petitionerdiscovered or reasonably should havediscovered the mental disease ordefect, the petitioner has notvoluntarily cohabited with the otherparty.

See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. 6.108 (Vernon 2003).

It is this authors opinion that the creation of atotal guardianship is prima facia evidence that theward is not competent to consent to marriage. Thismay be arguably overcome with evidence that theward has the capacity to understand the rights andduties of a spouse or evidence that the guardianshipwas actually limited and did not restrict the wardsright to marry. No Texas court has clearlyconsidered this issue to date.

As with all rights, when a ward is foundpartially incapacitated, the wards right to marry isdependent on the findings of the court in its orderappointing the guardian. If the order is silent onthis issue, it appears that the ward may retain theright to marry but an argument could be made to thecontrary based on the interpretation of the powersgranted to the guardian.

2. Seeking Permission/Clarification of Wards

Right to Marry.When the right of a ward to marry is in doubt,

and he or she desires to marry, it is advisable toseek permission and/or clarification from the court.Either the ward or the guardian may seekclarification from the court as to whether the wardhas the capacity and/or the right to do so. Beforedoing so, there are two issues that should beconsidered.

First, is there evidence of the wards desire tomarry and his or her capacity to understand theconcept of marriage? A qualified psychiatrist or

neurologist can often determine the wards capacityor ability to enter into the marriage and understandthe resulting commitment.

Second, the guardian and, to the extentpossible, the ward should consider the propertyissues and spousal duties that arise due to themarriage. For example, how will communityproperty be managed, who will control the separateand community property estates, will each waiveany community property rights, how will the dutiesof support be addressed, how will the estate be

handled in the event of death and/or divorce, will asurviving spouse claim a homestead and/or familyallowance in the event of either spouses death,what if the ward has a roving eye, etc.??

3. Consider Negotiating a Premarital Agreement .While a ward may arguably have the capacity

to understand the personal aspects of a marriage, heor she will often lack the capacity to understand theproperty issues. Thus, the involvement of aguardian will be generally required to address anyproperty and financial issues. If the guardiansupports the marriage, he or she may seekpermission from the court to either negotiate apremarital agreement or other direction. If theguardian does not support the marriage, the ward(or a guardian ad litem) may seek an ordercompelling the guardian to consent to the marriageand, if appropriate, negotiate a marital agreement orseek a finding that one is not required.

The following is a partial listing of the variousconsiderations and issues when negotiating anddrafting a premarital agreement on behalf of a wardor guardian:

A representation by the competent futurespouse that he or she is aware of the wardsguardianship and potential limitations;

Whether it will be a community freemarriage;

Confirmation that the guardian willcontinue to manage all the wards property,including any potential communityproperty;

Who will be responsible for each futurespouses debts and limits on spousalobligations;

Confirmation that the competent futurespouse will not obtain credit based on anyof the wards estate;

Each future spouses tax liabilities andwhether the competent future spouse andthe guardian will file joint or separatereturns;

Whether the competent future spouse willwaive any alleged right to seek theguardians removal and his or herappointment;

Potential waiver of Section 883 rights andclaims;

Support during marriage;

Whether any funds will be distributed to thecompetent future spouse for living


18/42




expenses, upon what basis, and any dutiesof accountability;

How any community property would bedivided in the event of divorce;

Any contractual testamentary obligations ofeither future spouse;

Rights and/or waiver of homestead;

Rights and/or waiver of family allowanceand exempt property claims at either futurespouses death;

Rights and/or waiver as to either futurespouses ERISA plans;

Waiver of potential tort claims;

Recognition of the guardians right to enterinto the agreement on behalf of ward; and

Representation that no one will claim theagreement or marriage is invalid due to thewards incapacity adjudication.

A sample Application For Authority To ExecutePremarital Agreement And For Ward ToCeremonially Marry and related order is attached asExhibit C and D to this outline.

D. Divorce.1. General Overview.

While a majority of the jurisdictions to addressthe issue currently allow a guardian to bring ormaintain a dissolution action on behalf of a ward,only a portion of those jurisdictions allow such anaction to be initiated by the guardian. The

remaining jurisdictions require either: (1) anexpress statute or rule authorizing the action; or (2)some degree of competency on the part of the wardto express a desire for a dissolution. See In reMarriage of Denowh ex rel. Deck, 78 P.3d 63(Mont. 2003)(citing In re Marriage of Burgess 302Ill.App.3d 807 (Ill. 1998). Even though thedecisions of the various courts are not necessarily inaccord, a majority of the courts to address this issuehave based their decisions on their respective state'sstatutory authority. SeeIn re Marriage of Denowhex rel. Deck, 78 P.3d at 65 ) (citing Phillips v.

Phillips, 45 S.E.2d 621 (Ga. 1947); Johnson v.Johnson, 170 S.W.2d 889 (Ky. 1943); In reMarriage of Drew, 503 N.E.2d 339 (Ill 1986) cert.denied483 U.S. 1001, 1075 S.Ct. 3222, 97 L.Ed.2d729 (1987); In re Marriage of Burgess,725 N.E.2d1266 (Ill. 2000)). Other states have held that aguardian may not seek to dissolve a wardsmarriage. See In re Marriage of Denowh ex rel.Deck, 78 P.3d at 65 (the relationship betweenspouses is highly personal and to allow a guardianto bring an action to dissolve his or her ward's

marriage would be to allow a guardian to interferein his or her ward's personal relationships.).

Texas, however, appears to follow the minorityview that a guardian may petition for divorce onbehalf of the ward notwithstanding the fact thatthere is no statute that expressly authorizes aguardian to do so. See Stubbs v. Ortega, 977S.W.2d 718, 724 (Tex.AppFort Worth 1998, writdenied) ("Texas public policy does not prohibitauthorizing a guardian to petition for divorce onbehalf of her mentally incapacitated ward");Wahlenmaier v. Wahlenmaier, 750 S.W.2d 837,838 (Tex.App.El Paso 1998, writ denied)(Section576.001 of the Texas Health and Safety Codegives every person who has a mental incapacityevery right and privilege guaranteed by ourconstitution and laws, it must include a right toobtain a divorce. It follows that, since the personmay not be able to act for themselves, a courtappointed guardian ad litem or next friend must beable to exercise those rights for a mentally illperson.); see also Nelson v. Nelson, 118 N.M. 17,878 P.2d 335, 341 (1994)("a guardian of an adultincompetent ward may initiate divorce proceedingson behalf of the ward"); Ruvalcaba v. Ruvalcaba,174 Ariz. 436, 850 P.2d 674, 683-84 (1993) (aguardian may bring a dissolution action on behalf ofthe incapacitated ward pursuant to his generalpowers to act on the ward's behalf).

2. Seek Authority for Ward To DivorceThe basis for a divorce may arise from a

number of facts and circumstances. In guardianshipproceedings, a divorce is often sought on one of twogrounds: (i) it is requested by the ward, or (ii) theguardian believes it would be in the wards bestinterest.

The ward may desire a divorce and request thatthe guardian pursue such an action. If the guardianis the person the ward seeks to divorce, it is thisauthors opinion that the ward may retain counselfor the purpose of bringing the issue to the courtsattention. See discussion infra. Another option isfor an interested person to intervene for purposes of

raising the issue with the court. Generally, thecourt will appoint a guardian ad litem to investigatethe issue.

When a divorce is requested by the ward, theguardian or third party should confirm via medicalexperts and otherwise that the ward has sufficientcapacity to understand the concept of divorce andits effect. The guardian or third party should alsoconfirm that the ward is not being pressured to seeka divorce by a third party. For example, a childmay convince his or her parent that they want a
http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=MT_caselaw&volume=78&edition=P.3d&page=63&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=KY_caselaw&volume=170&edition=S.W.2d&page=889&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=503&edition=N.E.2d&page=339&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=US_supremeopinions&volume=483&edition=U.S.&page=1001&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=US_supremeopinions&volume=1075&edition=S.Ct.&page=3222&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=725&edition=N.E.2d&page=1266&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=725&edition=N.E.2d&page=1266&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=977&edition=S.W.2d&page=718&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=977&edition=S.W.2d&page=718&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=750&edition=S.W.2d&page=837&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=NM_caselaw&volume=118&edition=N.M.&page=17&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=NM_caselaw&volume=878&edition=P.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=AZ_caselaw&volume=174&edition=Ariz.&page=436&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=AZ_caselaw&volume=850&edition=P.2d&page=674&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=AZ_caselaw&volume=850&edition=P.2d&page=674&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=AZ_caselaw&volume=174&edition=Ariz.&page=436&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=NM_caselaw&volume=878&edition=P.2d&page=335&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=NM_caselaw&volume=118&edition=N.M.&page=17&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=750&edition=S.W.2d&page=837&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=977&edition=S.W.2d&page=718&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=977&edition=S.W.2d&page=718&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=725&edition=N.E.2d&page=1266&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=725&edition=N.E.2d&page=1266&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=US_supremeopinions&volume=1075&edition=S.Ct.&page=3222&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=US_supremeopinions&volume=483&edition=U.S.&page=1001&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=IL_caselaw&volume=503&edition=N.E.2d&page=339&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=KY_caselaw&volume=170&edition=S.W.2d&page=889&id=135857_01http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=MT_caselaw&volume=78&edition=P.3d&page=63&id=135857_01


19/42




divorce to alter the wards estate plan by voidingany gifts to the other spouse. Again, a qualifiedpsychiatrist or neurologist can often determine thewards capacity or ability to understand thesematters and confirm that it is not the result ofpressure or third party influence. Once it isconfirmed the ward understands the resulting effectit will have on him or her personally, the guardianmay then seek authority to pursue a divorce, retainqualified counsel, and attempt to negotiate aproperty settlement.

Alternatively, the guardian may seek todivorce a ward on the basis that it is in the wardsbest interest. It remains unclear what evidence aguardian is required to present to obtain courtauthority to seek a divorce. In Stubbs v. Ortega, theappellate court reviewed the application based onthe terms of a prior partition agreement negotiatedbetween the wards guardian and the competentspouse. The agreement provided that the guardianmay seek a divorce in the event of physical abuseby the competent spouse or upon a showing ofgood cause as determined by the probate court.977 S.W.2d at 718. On appeal, the appellate courtheld that sufficient evidence to support the trialcourt's conclusion that, per the parties contract,good cause existed to allow the guardian to petitionfor wards divorce. See Garza v. Alviar, 395S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. 1965)(assertion evidence is"insufficient" to support fact finding meansevidence supporting finding is so