CHICAGO-(AEAE)- THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT GRANTED STOLLER'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE TWO APPEALS IN A PROBATE CASE. The case presents some very interesting legal questions of “first” impression. Stoller issues on Appeal are as follows. Stoller argues that
Judge Thomas Dudgeon committed clear error and abuse of discretion by awarding the Ward a monetary judgment against the Guardian. The main issue raised is whether the Probate Act trumps thePower of Attorney Act, in that the Guardian held a Power of attorney over the Ward which was entered into before the guardianship. The power of attorney provided that the Guardian had the authority to manage the monetary affairs of the Ward, and that the Ward had indemnified the Guardian against any financial losses of the Ward. Judge Thomas Dudgeon found the power of attorney to be valid and, in effect, prior to the guardianship, but stated in open Court in his findings that the "Probate Act trumps the Power of Attorney Act" and thus a final monetary judgment was erroneously entered against the Guardian. The Court then erroneously granted judgment against Stoller on behalf of Great American Insurance Company, the surety company, despite the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction over the surety company, in that the surety company had never moved to intervene in the case. Click on the attached link to see a copy of the appellate court's order, the docketing statement and a copy of a official transcript http://www.filefront.com/15498927/Appellate%20Court%20Order%202-2-100001.pdf in order to get a picture of the true flavor of this unique appeal, which Stoller is confident that he will reverse Judge Thomas Dudgeon. Stay tuned
SIDEBAR: In appeals the decision normally goes to the “smarter” side as opposed to decisions by trial court judges, which rarely goes to the smarter side, but to the side that judge knows or has been influenced by. That is why the Appeals Court(s) are the great equalizers.
Judge Thomas Dudgeon committed clear error and abuse of discretion by awarding the Ward a monetary judgment against the Guardian. The main issue raised is whether the Probate Act trumps thePower of Attorney Act, in that the Guardian held a Power of attorney over the Ward which was entered into before the guardianship. The power of attorney provided that the Guardian had the authority to manage the monetary affairs of the Ward, and that the Ward had indemnified the Guardian against any financial losses of the Ward. Judge Thomas Dudgeon found the power of attorney to be valid and, in effect, prior to the guardianship, but stated in open Court in his findings that the "Probate Act trumps the Power of Attorney Act" and thus a final monetary judgment was erroneously entered against the Guardian. The Court then erroneously granted judgment against Stoller on behalf of Great American Insurance Company, the surety company, despite the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction over the surety company, in that the surety company had never moved to intervene in the case. Click on the attached link to see a copy of the appellate court's order, the docketing statement and a copy of a official transcript http://www.filefront.com/15498927/Appellate%20Court%20Order%202-2-100001.pdf in order to get a picture of the true flavor of this unique appeal, which Stoller is confident that he will reverse Judge Thomas Dudgeon. Stay tuned
SIDEBAR: In appeals the decision normally goes to the “smarter” side as opposed to decisions by trial court judges, which rarely goes to the smarter side, but to the side that judge knows or has been influenced by. That is why the Appeals Court(s) are the great equalizers.
RSS Feed
