Court Opinion

ID: 9522492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:26:56.369894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:00.899598
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Jackson, J.
This being an original action seeking a WRIT OF PROHIBITION, the only question is, did the Vigo Circuit Court have jurisdiction?
As a matter of law, that question must be answered in the affirmative, and for that reason alone I am compelled to concur in the majority opinion.
The majority opinion has cited the law applicable here and has summarized the facts in this proceeding. The record here further discloses, on behalf of relatrix, that she is a widow 59 years of age and is the owner of real estate of the value of $6,500 and personal property of the value of $8,388. That a few days before December *1769,1958, relatrix on the advice of her brother, respondent Ebert Snoddy, and his family doctor, entered the Union Hospital at Terre Haute, Indiana. That on December 9, 1958, the respondent, Ebert Snoddy and his wife Vada, called on her in said hospital and asked that she sign certain legal papers which he had brought with him, viz.: a waiver of notice appearing at the bottom of a petition for appointment of her said brother as guardian of her person and estate. That she did not know at the time the signficance of said legal papers, but was in pain, drowsy and confused, and that her brother asked that she sign them in order to enable him to take care of her affairs while she was hospitalized. That she did not read the papers, but signed the waiver of notice in full confidence that her brother would not take unfair advantage of her. That she did not intend to be declared an incompetent and give him, as her guardian, exclusive control of her affairs. It appears from, the record here that Ebert Snoddy, as guardian, has taken possession of the ward’s property and checking account, giving her bare living expenses and has moved her into a cheap apartment.
Some of our statutes are fraught with peril to the rights of the persons involved. This court can not act as a super legislature and by judicial decree ignore a valid statute, but in my opinion this court is obligated to point out glaring weakness and inequities in the statutes to the end that such weaknesses and inequity may be eliminated or corrected.
The record in this case discloses that the statutes cited in the majority opinion are an open invitation for the perpetration of fraud upon the courts and the public alike. This situation should be corrected.
It seems incomprehensible that one can sign a waiver in a petition for the appointment of a guardian on *177account of incompetency, and thereafter, on the same day, in a matter of minutes or hours have a court act thereon and eo instante become incompetent on the rendition of the judgment.
Note. — Reported in 162 N. E. 2d 614.