Court Opinion

ID: 9353926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 05:10:07.482478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:14.488944
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
               revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                         STATE OF MICHIGAN

                         COURT OF APPEALS

In re Guardianship of NICHOLAS NAYAK.

LUKE JONATHAN NAYAK,                                            UNPUBLISHED
                                                                January 12, 2023
            Petitioner-Appellee,

and

KATHLEEN M. CARTER, Guardian of
NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated
Person, ZACHARY NAYAK, and DAVID NAYAK,

            Appellees,

v                                                               No. 362237
                                                                Washtenaw Probate Court
NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated                         LC No. 21-000341-GA
Person,

            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,

                                            -1-
v                                                                   No. 362303
                                                                    Washtenaw Probate Court
NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated                             LC No. 21-000342-CA
Person,

               Respondent-Appellant.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and K. F. KELLY and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals,1 respondent, Dr. Nicholas Nayak, a legally incapacitated
person, appeals by right the probate court’s orders denying his request to terminate the
guardianship and conservatorship of Kathleen M. Carter. Because we conclude that respondent’s
claims are moot, we dismiss the appeal.

                      I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL 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. After a hearing, the probate court appointed a guardian and a conservator.
Ultimately, both the guardian and conservator requested to resign. The 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
conservator. 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 dismissed 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 the prior order. These appeals followed.

                                        II. DISCUSSION

        Respondent argues that insufficient findings 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 reasons 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).

                                                -2-
         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 controversy, see id., and a decision on the issues 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
precluding respondent from filing a petition for six months 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 controversy 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, respondent does not address the probate court’s reasons 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. This
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 before 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.

                                                 -3-