## Facts

- An elderly man faced a guardianship complaint filed by his daughter alleging Alzheimer’s disease, inability to manage finances, vulnerability to scams, and unsafe living conditions.
- The man instructed his lawyer to oppose the guardianship and specifically opposed having his daughter appointed guardian.
- Rather than litigate, counsel arranged a consent order declaring him incapacitated and appointing an attorney as guardian.
- The court entered the consent order without an evidentiary hearing and without findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- The order allowed the guardian to serve without bond despite an estate valued at about $1 million and directed continuation of an annual $18,000 gifting program to the daughter.
- The man signed an additional agreement requiring him to move to assisted living within five days in exchange for permission to visit his home regularly.
- In 2003, with new counsel, he sought to set aside the incapacity judgment and restore capacity, asserting pressure and lack of full incapacity; alternatively, he sought a less restrictive financial arrangement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the guardian and dismissed the restoration application.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was improper because disputed material facts required a plenary hearing on the application to vacate the incapacity judgment and restore capacity under Rule 4:86-7.
2. Whether a consent-based guardianship entered without testimony or judicial findings provided adequate procedural protections, particularly where consent and capacity were contested.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order granting summary judgment.
- The case was remanded for a plenary evidentiary hearing.
- The court held that contested factual questions existed regarding the man’s capacity and the circumstances and voluntariness of the purported consent to the 2002 guardianship arrangement.
- The court did not decide present competence or whether the guardianship should end; it required fact-finding to determine the appropriate outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where genuine disputes of material fact exist concerning capacity and voluntariness in a guardianship/restoration dispute.
- Applications to restore capacity or modify/terminate guardianship under Rule 4:86-7 require a meaningful opportunity to be heard; when material facts are contested, an evidentiary hearing is required.
- Guardianship adjudications, including those presented as consent orders, require judicial scrutiny; a court should not impose or continue a guardianship without an adequate factual record and findings supporting incapacity and the scope of restrictions.
- Prior consent to a guardianship does not bar later judicial review where there is a credible dispute about understanding, pressure, or the person’s actual functional capacity.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a plenary hearing because the record presented disputed facts about capacity and the validity of the consent guardianship, and because guardianship determinations must rest on proper procedural safeguards and a developed evidentiary record.


In re Guardianship of Macak, 871 A.2d 767 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005)