If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

In re Guardianship of NICHOLAS NAYAK.

LUKE JONATHAN NAYAK,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

and

KATHLEEN M. CARTER, Guardian of

NICHOLAS NAYAK

, a Legally Incap acitated

Person , ZACHARY NAYAK, and DAVID NAYAK,

Appellees, UNPUBLISHED January 12, 2023

v No. 362237

Washtenaw Probate Court NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated
Person, LC No. 21

- 000341

- GA

Respondent

- Appellant.

In re Conservatorship of NICHOLAS NAYAK.

LUKE JONATHAN NAYAK,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

and

KATHLEEN M. CARTER, Conservator of

NICHOLAS NAYAK , a Legally Incapacitated

Person , ZACHARY NAYAK, and DAVID NAYAK,

Appellees,- 2

-

v No. 362303

Washtenaw Probate Court NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated
Person, LC No. 21

- 000342

- CA

Respondent

- Appellant.

Before: G LEICHER

, C .J., and K. F. K ELLY and L ETICA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

In these consolidated appeals, 1 r espondent, Dr. Nicholas Nayak, a legally incapacitated person, appeals by right the probate court ’s order s denying his request to terminate the guardianship and conservatorship of Kathleen M. Carter. Because w e conclude that respondent’s

claims are moot , we dismiss the appeal

.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROC EDURAL HISTORY

In March 2021, respondent’s son petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and conservator on the basis that cognitive testing showed that respondent was suffering from moderate

to severe dementia. Aft er a hearing, the probate court appointed a guardian and a conservator. Ultimately, b oth the guardian and conservator requested to resign. T he probate court subsequently appointed Carter as respondent’s guardian and conservator on March 9, 2022, ordering in both his guardianship and conservatorship files that respondent was not to petition to terminate or amend his guardianship or conservatorship for six months.

In June 2022, respondent filed an emergency petition to remove Carter as his guardian and

con servator. At a hearing on an unrelated matter, the probate court permitted respondent to establish why the allegations against his guardian and conservator were so egregious that it should overturn its previous order. The probate court ultimately dismiss ed the petition on the basis that respondent had been ordered not to file a new petition for six months and he had not made a showing to justify overriding th e prior order. Th ese appeal s followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that insufficient findi ngs supported the probate court’s decision because

he established good cause to modify or terminate his guardianship and conservatorship. Respondent ’s arguments , however, do not address the probate court’s reason s for dismissing his petition. Regardless, we conclude that this appeal is moot.

1 In re Nayak , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 9, 2022 (Docket Nos. 362237, 362303).- 3

-

This Court reviews de novo whether an issue is moot. Garrett v Washington , 314 Mich App 436, 449; 886 NW2d 762 (2016). An issue is moot if this Court’s decision can have no practical effect on an existing controver sy , see i d

. , and a decision on the issue s raised by respondent

would have no practical effect on this case. If respondent were to receive the relief he believes he is entitled to, this Court would remand the case to the probate court for a hearing. See Parent v

Parent , 282 Mich App 152, 156; 762 NW2d 553 (2009) ( “If a trial court fails to make reviewable findings of fact, the proper remedy is a remand for a new hearing.” ) . The probate court’s orders preclud ing respondent from filing a petition for six m onths were entered on March 9, 2022, which

is more than six months ago. Respondent is no longer precluded from filing a petition and receiving the hearing he seeks. Thus, because any decision from this Court will have no practical

effect on the controver sy between the parties, we conclude the appeal is moot. 2

Appeal dismissed as moot.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Anica Letica

2 Additionally, r espondent does not address the probate court ’ s reason s for dismissing his petition; instead, he argues that his petition showed that good cause existed to modify or terminate his guardianship and conservatorship and that the court wrongly considered Carter ’ s expertise. T his

Court need not consider an argument that does not address the basis of the lower court ’ s decision.

See Hanlin v Saugatuck Twp , 299 Mich App 233, 249; 829 NW2d 335 (2013) ( “ When an appellant fails to dispute the basis of the trial court ’ s ruling, the Court need not consider granting the appellant the relief it seeks. ” ).

To the extent that appellee Dr. David Nayak, respondent ’ s son, raises additional arguments,

he has not filed a cross

- appeal and does not state alternative reasons to affirm . Thus, his arguments are not properly be fore this Court. See Riverview v Sibley Limestone , 270 Mich App 627, 633 n 4; 716 NW2d 615 (2006) ( “ Although an appellee need not file a cross

- appeal to argue alternative reasons to support a judgment, to properly preserve a claim for appeal, the reasons must have been presented to the lower court

. ” ) (citation omitted). Regardless, even if the probate court improperly

entered the six

- month prohibition in the conservatorship case, the proper course of action would have been to appeal that order rather than to simply violate it.