In re Guardianship of Macak

In 2002, Walter Macak (plaintiff) was the subject of a guardianship action initiated by his daughter. The daughter claimed that because of Macak’s Alzheimer’s disease, he was unable to manage his finances, was easy prey for scam artists, and was living in a debris-littered house. The daughter’s petition asked the court to declare Macak incapacitated and appoint a guardian. Macak instructed his attorney to fight the guardianship petition and said that if a guardian was appointed, he did not want his daughter in that role. Instead of advocating for Macak’s objectives, the attorney negotiated a settlement under which Macak consented to a declaration that he was incapacitated, to the appointment of LaDonna Burton (defendant) as his guardian, and to Burton’s serving without a bond. The settlement also stated that Burton was to continue Macak’s pattern of gifting his daughter $18,000 per year. Macak consented because his attorney and Burton convinced him that absent the settlement agreement, his daughter would be appointed his guardian if he was deemed incompetent. Without holding a hearing or making any factual determinations, the trial court accepted the proposed settlement and appointed Burton as Macak’s guardian. In 2003, Macak retained a new attorney and petitioned to have the guardianship set aside, his legal capacity restored, and a conservator appointed for his financial affairs. He argued that he had consented to the settlement under duress and was not incapacitated but merely needed help with financial matters. The trial court granted summary judgment in Burton’s favor, leaving the guardianship in place. Macak appealed.