Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sharp v. Hanceville Nursing Home, Inc.
Citations: 719 So. 2d 243; 1998 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 213; 1998 WL 108118Docket: 2970100
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; March 12, 1998; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made from a summary judgment concerning Walter S. Sharp, a patient at Hanceville Nursing Home, and his daughter, Sandra Grund, who guaranteed payment for his treatment. Hanceville filed a complaint against Sharp and Grund in the Circuit Court of Cullman County for $17,569.36 in unpaid services. The court appointed attorney Steven Smith as Sharp's guardian ad litem. Subsequently, Sharp, represented by Grund, filed a lawsuit against Hanceville in Jefferson County, claiming wrongful discharge, which was later transferred to Cullman County. Sharp and Hanceville reached a settlement, leading to a consent judgment that included a waiver of all claims against each other. On August 25, 1997, Hanceville sought a summary judgment, arguing that all claims were released in the settlement. Sharp opposed this, asserting that Smith lacked authority to settle his claims. The trial court ruled in favor of Hanceville on October 9, 1997. Sharp’s appeal, transferred to a higher court, focused on Smith's authority as guardian ad litem, with no challenge to the settlement itself. Alabama law allows for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect an incompetent adult's interests, but does not define their powers. Most existing case law relates to minors, and it was noted that a guardian ad litem's authority is typically limited to the specific case for which they were appointed, as established in precedent cases. The court addressed the authority of a guardian ad litem, specifically in the case of Sharp, for whom Smith was appointed in an action against Hanceville. Smith’s authority was strictly limited to representing Sharp in this action; he could not act on behalf of Sharp in any other matters, including a separate action against Hanceville. The ruling emphasizes that a guardian ad litem cannot waive substantial rights of the ward or execute releases binding the ward, as supported by case law. Consequently, the court determined that Smith lacked the power to negotiate a release of Sharp’s claims, rendering the release ineffective. As a result, the summary judgment based on that release was reversed. Additionally, the court noted the absence of a judicial finding regarding Sharp’s incompetence, yet both parties acknowledged it in their appeals. The decision was reversed and remanded, with concurrence from other judges.