Blair Stautzenberger and Estate of C. Elizabeth Osborne v. M. Du — Danielson, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Danielson concurred that the circuit court properly modified its earlier order under Rule 60(a), but would have reversed and remanded the disallowance of several categories of guardianship expenditures. He reasoned that the circuit court failed to determine whether the expenditures were reasonable, proper, and actually made for the ward, and improperly treated the absence of prior authorization as dispositive. Justice Danielson, joined by Justices Corbin and Goodson, also would have considered whether the substituted-judgment doctrine validated payments benefiting the ward’s relatives and church.