Article by David English
The case of Britney Spears has shined a spotlight on guardianship, a subject area in which there has been increasing interest in recent years. The events surrounding Ms. Spears's case all occurred in a single jurisdiction, California. But with America's increasingly mobile population, an individual for whom a guardianship is sought may have contacts with multiple states and, in some cases, foreign countries. Furthermore, following the appointment of a guardian, the guardian or individual subject to guardianship may move to another jurisdiction; it may become necessary to transfer the guardianship proceeding to another jurisdiction or seek ratification of a local guardian's acts in another place.
The common law was ill-equipped to address the challenges of modern guardianship, where the participants in the proceeding often have contacts with more than one state. The application of well-established but sometimes uncertain concepts of domicile, residence, and presence could result in multiple states having concurrent jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or otherwise deal with an individual's property. Also, it was sometimes stated that a guardian's authority stops at the state line, thereby denying the guardian's actions extra-territorial effect.
To address these jurisdictional conflicts and limitations, the Uniform Law Commission in 2007 approved the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA). Through 2021, the UAGPPJA has been enacted in forty-six states and the District of Columbia. The UAGPPJA creates a hierarchy for determining which state has jurisdiction to make a guardianship appointment, provides a procedure for transferring a proceeding to another state, and creates a mechanism for giving acts of a guardian extra-territorial effect.
This Article begins with a discussion of representative cases that illustrate the jurisdictional conflicts that can arise in adult guardianship. The Article then discusses how the common law, state statutes, the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, and prior uniform acts failed to adequately respond to these challenges. The Article then turns to a detailed analysis of the UAGPPJA and to case law decided under that Act. The Article concludes with a recommendation on how adult guardianship should be addressed in the Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws project and makes a plea for more complete guardianship data so that the effectiveness of the UAGPPJA and other legislative solutions in guardianship can be better assessed.
About the Author
David English, W. F. Fratcher Professor of Law, University of Missouri; Reporter, Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act. Special thanks to Thomas P. Gallanis and Nina A. Kohn for their helpful comments on a prior draft of this Article.
Citation
97 Tul. L. Rev. 743