Court Opinion

ID: 9614643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:27:00.656678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:37.848056
License: Public Domain

Judge Phillips
dissenting.
The provisions of Chapter 35A of the General Statutes indicate to me that the Legislature intended for the appointments pursuant to Rule 17 to continue as they had in the past. If it intended Chapter 35A to be the exclusive method of appointing all guardians of any type, kind or description, then the provisions of Rule 17 insofar as they pertain to the appointment of a Guardian ad litem in cases like this, where the plaintiff is admittedly not incompetent for all purposes, would be rendered obsolete. Judicial efficiency requires the continued efficacy of Rule 17 in situations such as exist here and I do not believe the Legislature intended otherwise.