## Facts

- Lillian P., age 89, suffered advancing dementia. A Wisconsin circuit court found her incompetent and ordered permanent guardianship and protective placement.
- The court appointed Mely A. (Mely Arndt) as Lillian’s guardian. Lutheran Social Services was involved in the guardianship/protective-placement arrangement.
- At first, Lillian lived in her homestead with her son, Lester P., Jr., and received in-home care. As her condition worsened, she was moved to a residential dementia-care facility and was sometimes hospitalized when her condition made her physically dangerous.
- Lester continued living in Lillian’s house. Because Lillian was under guardianship, a sale of the homestead required court approval.
- In January 1999, Lester petitioned for court approval to buy the homestead for $70,000.
- The next day, the guardian petitioned for authority to sell the property publicly (on the open market). Lester did not receive notice of that petition until March 11, 1999, one day before the scheduled hearing.
- At the March 12, 1999 hearing, the court heard evidence that the homestead was worth substantially more than $70,000. The court denied Lester’s purchase petition and allowed the guardian to list the property for sale, subject to later confirmation of any sale.
- A third-party buyer agreed to purchase the property for $115,000, and the guardian moved for confirmation of that sale.
- Lester and Lillian objected to the sale and argued that Lillian wanted to return home. The circuit court stated it would hold a full hearing under *Watts* (concerning protective placement and least-restrictive alternatives) if Lester provided an expert report or other adequate offer of proof supporting the claim that returning home was in Lillian’s best interests.
- The circuit court denied Lester’s reconsideration request and proceeded toward confirming the sale. Lillian and Lester appealed the order authorizing the sale of the homestead, arguing they were denied necessary procedural protections.

## Issues

1. Whether Lillian and Lester received adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the guardian’s request to place the homestead on the open market and later confirm a third-party sale.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by not immediately conducting a full *Watts* hearing before authorizing or confirming the homestead sale, where the appellants claimed Lillian wished to return home.
3. Whether any asserted procedural defects required reversal of the order authorizing/confirming the sale of the ward’s homestead.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order authorizing the sale of Lillian’s homestead.
- The court held that the proceedings, viewed as a whole, provided the required procedural protections, including opportunities for Lester and Lillian to be heard on the proposed disposition of the home.
- The court concluded that the circuit court did not commit reversible error by conditioning a full *Watts* hearing on an adequate offer of proof, and the record did not show that the required proffer was made.

## Legal Principles

- In guardianship proceedings involving the sale of a ward’s homestead, due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, but appellate review considers the entire course of proceedings rather than isolating a single notice defect.
- A circuit court supervising a guardianship may authorize marketing and later confirmation of a sale after hearing evidence regarding value and the ward’s interests, especially where the sale is subject to continued court oversight through confirmation.
- A court may require an offer of proof (such as an expert report) before convening a full *Watts* hearing on least-restrictive placement/alternatives when a party asserts the ward should return home.
- The guardianship court has discretion to manage hearings and evidence while carrying out its duty to protect the ward’s property and ensure decisions are made for the ward’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld the order authorizing the sale of Lillian P.’s homestead, ruling that the circuit court gave Lillian and Lester sufficient procedural protections through hearings and ongoing judicial supervision, and that the court acted within its discretion by requiring an adequate offer of proof before holding a full *Watts* hearing on whether Lillian should return home.


In re Guardianship of Lillian P., 617 N.W.2d 849 (2000)