## Facts

- A petitioner sought appointment as guardian of the person and estate of Harold H. Galvin, alleging he was disabled and unable to manage his affairs.
- Medical testimony described serious conditions including advanced arthritis, prior strokes with right-side weakness, congestive heart failure, and a diagnosis of organic brain syndrome; the physician opined Galvin was disabled, but acknowledged recent improvement and limited knowledge of Galvin’s finances.
- Galvin testified that he owned and lived in a three-flat building, collected rent, had a small bank account, and could manage his funds.
- Galvin stated he could perform basic tasks (meals, shopping, laundry) with assistance and the use of a cane or walker; he lived with roommates who sometimes helped him.
- The trial judge observed and questioned Galvin, concluding that despite impairments and an unconventional lifestyle, he understood his circumstances and decisions.
- The petitioner attempted to present additional testimony (roommates, neighbors, and herself) about Galvin’s behavior and need for care; the trial court limited some of this evidence.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the guardianship petition, finding Galvin not in need of a guardian.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s finding that Galvin was not disabled and not in need of a guardian was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether limiting the petitioner’s proposed evidence deprived her of due process or constituted an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying guardianship.
- The trial court’s finding that Galvin did not require a guardian was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in controlling the hearing or restricting certain evidence, and the petitioner received a fair opportunity to present her case.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an alleged disabled person requires a guardian is a fact question for the trial judge, who may rely on courtroom observation of the person and witnesses.
- On review, a guardianship determination is reversed only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Physical or mental impairment, standing alone, does not compel guardianship; the question is whether the person can make and communicate responsible decisions about person and property, even with reasonable assistance.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings and the conduct of hearings; due process requires a fair opportunity to be heard, not admission of all proposed evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld denial of guardianship because the trial judge could reasonably find, based on competing medical and lay evidence and personal observation, that Galvin retained sufficient capacity to manage his affairs, and the hearing procedures did not deny the petitioner due process.


Estate of Galvin v. Galvin, 112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)