Opinion
362303 362237
01-12-2023
In re Guardianship of NICHOLAS NAYAK. v. NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated Person, Respondent-Appellant. LUKE JONATHAN NAYAK, Petitioner-Appellee, and KATHLEEN M. CARTER, Guardian of NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated Person, ZACHARY NAYAK, and DAVID NAYAK, Appellees, 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, v NICHOLAS NAYAK, a Legally Incapacitated Person,Respondent-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Washtenaw Probate Court LC Nos. 21-000341-GA, 21-000342-CA
Before: Gleicher, C.J., and K. F. Kelly and Letica, JJ.
Per Curiam.
In these consolidated appeals, 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.
In re Nayak, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 9, 2022 (Docket Nos. 362237, 362303).
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.
This Court reviews de novo whether an issue is moot. Garrett v Washington, 314 Mich.App. 436, 449; 886 N.W.2d 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 N.W.2d 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.
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 N.W.2d 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 N.W.2d 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.
Appeal dismissed as moot.