Estate of Galvin v. Galvin
Illinois Appellate Court
112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 68 Ill. Dec. 370, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (1983)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Mildred Tobias (plaintiff) petitioned a state trial court to be appointed guardian of the estate and person of Harold Galvin (defendant). Galvin objected to the appointment. Galvin had heart, cerebral, and arthritic conditions and had had two strokes in recent years, leading to hospitalizations, one which lasted two months. During his two-month-long hospitalization, Galvin was disoriented and delusional and was diagnosed with a degenerative brain disorder. Galvin’s heart condition was stabilized with medication; however, the condition was deemed progressive and irreversible. Galvin’s brain disorder was also irreversible; however, it improved during Galvin’s hospitalization. Galvin testified at his guardianship hearing that he lived with two roommates in the basement of a building that he owned and rented to other occupants; his roommates prepared his meals at times, but he could prepare his own meals; he could do his own shopping and laundry with the help of ambulatory devices; and he could manage the little funds he had in his bank account. On cross-examination, some of Galvin’s testimony proved unreliable. However, the trial judge did not find Galvin disabled, believing Galvin understood the things he did although he was eccentric, had some physical disabilities and mental incapacity, and had a peculiar and less desirable lifestyle to some. Tobias sought to prove that Galvin needed guardianship by offering testimony from his roommates about his delusions and their intent to move out; testimony from neighbors about Galvin’s behavior; and her own testimony about how she and her mother cared for Galvin. The judge refused the proof and denied Tobias’s petition. Tobias appealed the trial judge’s decision, arguing that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence and an abuse of discretion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.