Opinion ID: 1609139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Swift on the Basis He Was Immune From Liability for His Actions?

Text: Under Iowa law, a guardian ad litem is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See Babbe v. Peterson, 514 N.W.2d 726, 727 (Iowa 1994). This immunity `rests on the theory that persons who are integral to the judicial process must be able to perform their functions without the intimidating effect of potential lawsuits.' Id. (citation omitted). Consistent with this purpose, a guardian ad litem is protected by immunity only insofar as he or she functions as such. See Muzingo v. St. Luke's Hosp., 518 N.W.2d 776, 777 (Iowa 1994). Immunity does not attach to conduct that is beyond the scope of a guardian ad litem's duties. See Short v. Short, 730 F.Supp. 1037, 1039 (D.Colo.1990). The estate's primary argument in support of its contention that the court erred in ruling that Swift was entitled to immunity is the estate's claim that Swift acted as court-appointed counsel, not as a guardian ad litem. Because we disagree with the estate's characterization of Swift's role in the conservatorship proceeding, we do not reach the estate's secondary argument that immunity should not attach to Swift's actions as court-appointed counsel because his appointment did not comply with chapter 633 and because he had a conflict of interest. Our decision also makes it unnecessary to address the estate's claim that it needed additional discovery on the conflict-of-interest issue. We begin our analysis with a review of the role of a guardian ad litem in contrast to that of an attorney appointed by the court to represent a proposed ward. With that background, we will then focus on the specific facts of this case. A. Guardians ad litem and appointed attorneys. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed by the court to protect the interests of the ward in specific litigation. See Black's Law Dictionary 706 (6th ed.1990); accord Garcia v. Wibholm, 461 N.W.2d 166, 170 (Iowa 1990); 53 Am. Jur.2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 176, at 612 (1996); ABA Standards of Practice for Lawyers Who Represent Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases pt. IX, § A-2 (1996) [hereinafter ABA Standards of Practice ]. A guardian ad litem need not be an attorney. Punelli v. Punelli, 260 Iowa 549, 552, 149 N.W.2d 784, 786 (1967). In Iowa, guardians ad litem are generally appointed pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.212 (formerly rule 14), which requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem [i]f a party served with original notice appears to be subject to rule 1.211. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.211 (formerly rule 13) prohibits a judgment without a defense against a minor, an incarcerated person, or one hospitalized for mental illness, adjudged incompetent, or certified to be mentally incapable of conducting a defense. In addition to these rules, the court has the inherent power to do whatever is essential to the performance of its constitutional functions, Webster County Bd. of Supervisors v. Flattery, 268 N.W.2d 869, 874 (Iowa 1978), including the appointment of a guardian ad litem. See 53 Am.Jur.2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 174, at 610 (Every court has the inherent power to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent an incapacitated person in that court.). There is no rule or statute that sets out the precise role of a guardian ad litem. We have said, however, that the purpose of rule 1.212, which provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for an incompetent person, is to bring before the court, through one acting as an officer of the court, the vicarious presence of one who for some reason is unable to attend a civil trial or present a defense. In re Marriage of McGonigle, 533 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Iowa 1995) (emphasis added); see also Babbe, 514 N.W.2d at 727 (stating that guardians ad litem perform quasi-judicial functions); cf. ABA Standards of Practice pt. IX, § A-2 (stating guardian ad litem for child is an officer of the court). More specifically, our rules of civil procedure require that any answer filed by a guardian ad litem shall state whether proper service has been had on the ward and shall deny all material allegations prejudicial to the ward. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.405(2) (formerly rule 72 and earlier designated as rule 71). Beyond recognizing this minimal requirement, our court, as well as those individuals serving as guardians ad litem, have struggled to identify the precise duties and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem. See generally Garcia, 461 N.W.2d at 170 (discussing nebulous nature of guardian ad litem's duties); Lalla v. Gilroy, 369 N.W.2d 431, 433 (Iowa 1985) (declining to rule upon the extent of the duties and responsibilities of the guardian ad litem in [that] case, noting the guardian ad litem's contention that he was unable to ascertain, from either the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure or from the cases decided thereunder, the extent of his responsibilities as guardian ad litem beyond the filing of an answer pursuant to rule 71). In Garcia, this court, although not stating a laundry list of actions a guardian ad litem must take to protect the interests of the ward, did discuss the nature of the required action. Noting that the role of a guardian ad litem was not perfunctory, we said: It seems clear to us, then, that a guardian ad litem must provide a defense that will ensure protection of the ward's interest. In some circumstances, conducting an investigation and filing a general denial to avoid a default may be enough. In other circumstances, the guardian ad litem may need to do more, even to the extent of proceeding to trial. Simply put, the guardian ad litem must do whatever the circumstances of the particular case dictate is necessary to protect the ward's interest. Garcia, 461 N.W.2d at 170. At a minimum, it appears a guardian ad litem must make an investigation and advise the court of any legitimate and proper defense to the action against the ward, Stephens v. Wood, 196 Iowa 1394, 1397, 195 N.W. 239, 241-42 (1923), and must be present at the trial, if the matter proceeds to that stage, Garcia, 461 N.W.2d at 171. In performing this function, however, a guardian ad litem acts as an officer of the court, not as the ward's attorney. See In re Marriage of McGonigle, 533 N.W.2d at 525 (holding a guardian ad litem is not expected to assume the role of an attorney); ABA Standards of Practice pt. IX, §§ A-2, B-2 (noting distinction between function and responsibilities of guardian ad litem for child and child's attorney). Overall, we think the role of a guardian ad litem is twofold. The guardian ad litem, by filing an answer on behalf of the ward denying all material allegations in the petition prejudicial to the ward, ensures that a default judgment is not rendered against a person who is unable to defend for reasons of incompetency, incarceration, or minority. In addition, as an officer of the court, the guardian ad litem advocates for the best interests of the ward. See, e.g., Short, 730 F.Supp. at 1038 (stating that a guardian ad litem advocates for the ward's best interests); 53 Am.Jur.2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 177, at 613 (stating guardian ad litem has the duty to determine the best interests of his or her ward); ABA Standards of Practice pt. IX, § A-2 (A lawyer appointed as `guardian ad litem' for a child is an officer of the court appointed to protect the child's interests without being bound by the child's expressed preferences.). We turn now to the role of attorneys appointed to represent a proposed ward in a conservatorship proceeding. The probate code provides for the appointment of counsel for a proposed ward under certain circumstances. See Iowa Code § 633.575. At the time of the proceedings in question, section 633.575 stated in pertinent part: 1. In a proceeding for the appointment of a conservator, if the proposed ward is an adult and is not the petitioner, the proposed ward is entitled to representation.... 2. The court shall ensure that all proposed wards entitled to representation have been provided with notice of the right to representation and right to be personally present at all proceedings and shall make findings of fact in any order of disposition setting out the manner in which notification was provided. 3. If the proposed ward is entitled to representation and is indigent or incapable of requesting counsel, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the proposed ward.... [1] Iowa Code § 633.575(1)-(3). This statute also sets out the duties of an attorney appointed to represent a proposed ward: 4. An attorney appointed pursuant to this section, to the extent possible, shall: a. Ensure that the proposed ward has been properly advised of the nature of the proceedings and its purpose. b. Ensure that the proposed ward has been properly advised of the ward's rights in a conservatorship proceeding. c. Personally interview the proposed ward. d. File a written report stating whether there is a return on file showing that proper service on the proposed ward has been made and also stating that specific compliance with paragraphs  a  through  c  has been made or stating the inability to comply by reason of the ward's condition. e. Represent the proposed ward. f. Ensure that the conservatorship procedures conform to the statutory and due process requirements of Iowa law. 5. In the event that an order of appointment is entered, the attorney appointed pursuant to this section, to the extent possible, shall: a. Inform the proposed ward of the effects of the order entered for appointment of conservator. b. Advise the ward of the ward's rights to petition for modification or termination of conservatorship. c. Advise the ward of the rights retained by the ward. Id. § 633.575(4)-(5). A comparison of the duties of a guardian ad litem and an appointed attorney reveals the overlapping nature of their responsibilities. A guardian ad litem must conduct an investigation; an attorney must interview the proposed ward. A guardian ad litem must provide a defense; an attorney must represent the proposed ward. Any answer filed by the guardian ad litem must indicate whether proper service was made upon the ward; the written report filed by the attorney must state whether there is a return on file showing proper service. Notwithstanding similarities in their duties, a guardian ad litem and an attorney serve different functions. The fundamental distinction between their roles lies in the focal point of their efforts. The guardian ad litem protects the integrity of the litigation process by preventing a default judgment against those incapable of defending themselves, thereby ensuring that claims against such individuals will be tested in court before a judgment can be rendered. More specifically, a guardian ad litem serves the court, advising the court, after an impartial investigation, of any defense to the action held by the ward. In contrast, the attorney represents the ward and must advise the ward of his rights and ensure that those rights are protected by making certain the proceedings comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements of Iowa law. In summary, the guardian ad litem advocates for the best interests of the ward, whereas an attorney advances the wishes of the ward. See, e.g., Short, 730 F.Supp. at 1038 (stating, with respect to the functional differences between a guardian ad litem and court appointed counsel, that a guardian ad litem must have a higher degree of objectivity and advocate for the ward's best interests rather than parroting the ward's expressed wishes); 53 Am. Jur.2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 177, at 613 (comparing guardian ad litem's duty to determine the best interests of his or her ward without necessary reference to the wishes of the ward to the professional responsibility of an attorney to zealously represent the wishes of his or her client); ABA Standards of Practice pt. IX, § A-2 commentary (stating [t]he chief distinguishing factor between the roles [of guardian ad litem and lawyer of record] is the manner and method to be followed in determining the legal position to be advocated; [w]hile a guardian ad litem should take the child's point of view into account, the child's preferences are not binding), § B-4 (The child's attorney should represent the child's expressed preferences and follow the child's direction throughout the course of litigation.). Another difference concerns the scope of involvement in the conservatorship proceedings by a guardian ad litem and an appointed attorney. The guardian ad litem's role ends when the court rules upon the petition for appointment of a conservator, even if the court appoints a conservator. That is because a guardian ad litem serves only with respect to the specific matter for which he was appointed. See Black's Law Dictionary 706 (6th ed.1990). On the other hand, an attorney continues to represent the ward in the conservatorship proceeding, assuming the court does not dismiss the petition. See Iowa Code § 633.575(5). With this understanding of the similarities and differences between a guardian ad litem and an attorney appointed to represent the ward, we now consider the facts of this case. B. Was Swift acting as a guardian ad litem as a matter of law? Our review of the record shows that the court appointed Swift to serve as a guardian ad litem, despite Jerry's request that counsel be appointed for the proposed ward pursuant to section 633.575. The court cited no authority for its appointment of a guardian ad litem. We presume, however, the court was concerned about Milton's competency due to the allegations made in the application for involuntary conservatorship that Milton was unable to make decisions concerning his financial affairs. [2] The record reveals Swift filed an answer to the petition, referencing his status as a guardian ad litem, but indicating he was appointed pursuant to section 633.575 of the 1995 Code of Iowa. In addition, Swift signed the answer as the attorney for the proposed ward. In an application for fees and expenses of guardian ad litem filed on the day of the hearing on the petition, Swift alleged he had been appointed by the court to act as guardian ad litem and attorney for the proposed ward. Notwithstanding Swift's references to his status as that of guardian ad litem and attorney, the court, in its order appointing a conservator and approving Swift's fee application, consistently referred to Swift as a guardian ad litem and did not refer to section 633.575 expressly or impliedly. Swift's apparent confusion as to his precise role in the conservatorship proceeding does not, however, automatically mean there is a factual dispute with respect to whether he is protected by quasi-judicial immunity. [I]n determining whether absolute immunity applies, the focus is on the nature of the function performed, not on the identity or title of the particular actor. Muzingo, 518 N.W.2d at 777. Therefore, Swift's reference to himself as an attorney is not determinative; rather, we must center our attention on the function he performed in the conservatorship proceeding. As previously noted, Swift filed an answer to the petition on behalf of Milton. Swift alleged in the answer that personal service had been made upon the proposed ward and a proper proof of service was on file. This action is consistent with the duties of both a guardian ad litem and an attorney. Swift also stated in the answer that [p]ursuant to section 633.575(4), he had interviewed the proposed ward and advised the proposed ward of the nature of the proceeding and its purpose, as well as the ward's rights in the conservatorship proceedings. These acts reflect the responsibilities imposed on an attorney but are not inconsistent with the duties of a guardian ad litem. In fact, we would expect that part of the investigation conducted by a guardian ad litem would include an interview of the ward. Moreover, in order to ascertain whether the ward had any defense to the action, a guardian ad litem would naturally discuss with the ward the nature and purpose of the proceeding, as well as the ward's rights. Additionally, Swift stated in the answer that [p]ursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 71, the guardian ad litem denies all material allegations of the petition which are prejudicial to the ward. This act clearly reflects the requirements imposed on a guardian ad litem, but is not necessarily inconsistent with actions an attorney might take. In addition to interviewing Milton and filing an answer, Swift attended the hearing on the petition for appointment of an involuntary conservator, an act expected of guardians ad litem and attorneys. As indicated earlier, Swift's only participation in the hearing was when he asked Milton if Milton would consent to the conservator serving without bond. Although it appears Swift did not report the results of his investigation to the court as one would expect of a guardian ad litem, it also appears he did not file a written report with the court as a lawyer appointed to represent the ward is required to do under section 633.575(4)( d ). Thus, Swift neither advocated for the ward's best interests, nor did he urge the ward's expressed wishes. As we noted previously, however, Swift had no involvement in any subsequent proceedings, a clear signal that he performed the functions of a guardian ad litem and not that of an attorney. The record also shows that Milton was advised in the original notice served upon him that he had a right to be represented by counsel. In addition, Swift personally informed Milton of his right to have counsel represent him. Perhaps most importantly, there is no evidence that Swift undertook to advise Milton on any legal matters in connection with the conservatorship. In summary, Swift performed no acts that were outside his role as a guardian ad litem. Under these circumstances, we do not think his mistaken reliance on section 633.575 transforms his actions from those of a guardian ad litem to those of an appointed attorney. Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that Swift functioned as a guardian ad litem as a matter of law. It follows, then, that the court correctly granted summary judgment to Swift on the basis that he was immune from suit for the actions he took as the guardian ad litem for Milton Leonard.