Success in a Court-Appointed Guardian Ad Litem's Lengthy Battle for Fees | Speaker Law
phone icon email icon
(517) 482-8933

Speaker Law
Blog

Success in a Court-Appointed Guardian Ad Litem's Lengthy Battle for Fees

Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2018

In the published opinion Doe v Boyle, Docket No. 320102 (September 22, 2015), after a lengthy battle, the Court of Appeals awarded court-appointed guardian ad litem Thomas Woods costs and attorney's fees for his services on a personal injury suit as a guardian ad litem for the defendant minor child. The plaintiff, by his mother as next friend, had sued the minor child defendant Michael Hand, Hand's foster-care provider, the state of Michigan, DHS, and DHS of Wexford-Missaukee Counties. The procedural history of the case is complicated, but essentially, when Woods first requested costs and attorney's fees after the state of Michigan, DHS, and DHS of Wexford-Massaukee Counties were granted dismissal, the circuit court denied him any costs or attorney's fees and continued to do so in all subsequent hearings where he requested them. In Wood's second appeal, the subject of this blog, the Court of Appeals held that Woods, as a court-appointed guardian ad litem, was entitled to both costs and attorney's fees, citing Court Rules and statutes indicating a guardian ad litem should not be responsible for such costs. See MCL 600.2415; MCR 2.201(E)(1)(c) & (3)(a). The Court of Appeals also held that DHS is responsible for Wood's costs and fees, despite DHS no longer being a party to the action, because Hand (the minor defendant) was a ward of the state, and DHS and the MCI Superintendent were accountable for Hand's care. The Court of Appeals noted that this is a similar outcome to child-protective and delinquency proceedings, and that this is a personal injury suit does not change DHS's responsibility. 

 

It is amazing that it took over five years from the first time Woods requested costs and attorney's fees for his work as a guardian ad litem and two separate appeals, not to mention various litigation in the circuit court, for Woods to be awarded costs and attorney's fees. However, the Court of Appeals decision makes sense and hopefully will provide other guardians ad litem the ability for easier recovery for their work.

Do you have an appeal?
Let's find out!

Recent
Posts

Law Firm May Collect Unpaid Fees Based On Contract Provision
Nov 23, 2021
A trial court properly awarded the plaintiff-attorney more than $78...
Appeals Court Strikes Down Parts Of Michigan’s Ballot Drive Law
Nov 17, 2021
The Michigan Court of Appeals has declared unconstitutional several...
Statute Authorizing Imposition Of Court Costs Is Constitutional
Nov 10, 2021
The defendant did not demonstrate that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) – the ...
Plaintiff’s Fraud Did Not Necessitate ROPA Judgment Being Vacated
Nov 3, 2021
The trial court in this disputed parentage case properly held that,...

Tags

 

Subscribe to our blog

* indicates required