Opinion ID: 1902391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem.

Text: Appellant's initial argument on appeal is to challenge the propriety of the trial Court's failure to allow her guardian ad litem sufficient time in which to prepare his case. This contention is without merit. Rule 17(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure states the law with respect to the Circuit Court's appointment of a guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem ... (2) for an incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action and may make any other orders it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person. Rule 17(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. (Emphasis added.) Ms. Brown contends, and we agree, that a close reading of the record indicates the Appellant was diligently represented by counsel, from the inception of this suit through this appeal. Consequently, in keeping with Rule 17(c), the trial Court was under no duty to appoint a guardian ad litem in the first place. Assuming arguendo that Ms. Meriwether was entitled to appointment of a guardian ad litem, we next address Appellant's contention that her guardian was afforded insufficient time in which to prepare an adequate defense. The Circuit Court received Appellant's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem one day prior to the date the case was set for trial. Neither the attorney for Appellant nor the guardian ad litem himself ever requested a continuance in the matter. Furthermore, the record indicates that the guardian ad litem signed an acceptance and filed an answer while never objecting to the trial date of October 18, 1979. In Helton v. Helton, 362 So.2d 257 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), the Court of Civil Appeals aptly stated: Under Rule 17(c) the court may also take any additional steps it deems proper in an effort to protect the incompetent person. Such steps are, however, within the Court's discretion and we will not reverse the court unless there is an abuse of such discretion. Helton v. Helton , at 259. The Circuit Court, in our opinion, acted properly and cannot be said to have abused its discretion.