IN RE CONSERVATORSHIP OF STEPHANIE REARDON (Per Curiam Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re conservatorship of STEPHANIE REARDON DAWN HASKELL, Conservator for STEPHANIE REARDON, Minor UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2012 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 303250 Midland Probate Court LC No. 11-005228-CY MICHAEL REARDON and SANDRA REARDON, Respondents-Appellants. Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and WILDER and MURRAY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondents, Michael Reardon and Sandra Reardon, appeal as of right the lower court s opinion and order appointing a guardian and conservator over their daughter, then 17-year-old Stephanie Reardon. We affirm. At the outset, we note that this Court has jurisdiction over respondent s claim of appeal only insofar as it involves a challenge of the probate court s appointment of a conservator for Stephanie. MCR 5.801(B)(2)(a). On the other hand, this Court does not have jurisdiction in this appeal to consider respondents arguments challenging the probate court s appointment of the guardian because an appeal of a guardianship appointment must first be heard by the circuit court. MCR 5.801(C)(1). During oral argument, the parties acknowledged that the appeal of the guardianship appointment was still pending in the circuit court.1 Thus, our opinion will address only the matter for which we have jurisdiction, the probate court s appointment of a conservator for Stephanie. 1 It appears that subsequent to oral argument, the appeal challenging the appointment of the guardian was dismissed by the circuit court as moot after Stephanie turned 18 years old. -1- We conclude that respondents have abandoned their challenge of the appointment of the conservator. Respondents brief argues at length that the probate court erred in its ruling because the conditions of MCL 700.5204(2) were not met. But MCL 700.5204(2) only addresses the requirements for an appointment of a guardian. Respondents brief failed to address in any respects whether MCL 700.5401(2), which governs the appointment of conservators, was satisfied, and consequently, we consider the issue abandoned. DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587, 601; 741 NW2d 384 (2007). Affirmed. Petitioner, the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Christopher M. Murray -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
