The Cortland County Supreme Court, in presiding over a guardianship proceeding, recently ruled that even though an Alleged Incapacitated Person (AIP) was competent, that a monitor of assets must be appointed based upon the court’s concern that a relapse of the AIP’s penchant for uncontrolled spending and uninhibited speculation in various businesses and loans had a 30 percent chance of reoccurrence. In so doing, the court indicated that it was making the appointment with the consent of the AIP.
However, it is the belief of the authors that even with said consent, the decision is clearly not in keeping with the legislative intent of Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and is the first step onto the slippery slope of invasion of the personal property rights of an AIP wrought solely in an attempt to assist in the enforcement of a distributive award granted to an ex-spouse.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
