by P.D. Lesko
NOTE: This is one in a series of articles about the Washtenaw County Trial Court and cases where a litigant or litigants appealed a County Trial Court judge’s ruling. The majority of local Trial Court rulings are upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, but in some instances local judges are found to have ruled erroneously, that they showed bias, abused their discretion, and misruled in egregious ways. While the Michigan Court of Appeals’ (COA) opinions (published and unpublished) are public, those opinions, while delivered to the presiding judge, have to be sought out on the COA’s website using the Michigan Court of Appeals case search.
According to research published by the non-partisan Center for Retirement Research, “adult guardianship overall is relatively rare—affecting roughly 0.3 percent of all adults and about 0.6 percent of adults aged 60 and older. It is typically pursued only as a last resort when a parent becomes severely incapacitated.” Obtaining guardianship of a parent can be legally contentious and difficult when siblings disagree. This guardianship case filed in the Washtenaw 22nd Circuit Court pitted brother against brother. Familial contention was compounded by a judge who, in ruling, allegedly abused her discretion and misinterpreted the law. The case moved from the 22nd Circuit Court to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
In an Aug. 12, 2026 unpublished opinion, a trio of judges on the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that 22nd Circuit Court Judge Julia B. Owdziej “improperly dismissed the case” for the plaintiff’s request for “for guardianship of his mother, LAV.” The petitioner argued in his appeal that the Washtenaw Probate Court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition on the basis of improper venue and on the merits. According to the Court of Appeals’ Aug. 12 opinion, “The probate court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes or is an error of law.”
In such cases, siblings typically argue over choosing whom the guardian should be, as well as financial oversight. This was the case with LAV’s sons. One sibling filed in the 22nd Circuit Court alleging that his brother had alienated their mother from him and planned to move their mother to a new home hours away. The Court of Appeals opinion outlined the conflict: one brother “was not
acting consistent with the ward’s best interests, and that the person with care and custody of LAV denied others any access to LAV….” [The filing alleged] that the custodial brother had “shut petitioner out of LAV’s life.” The opinion stated his brother’s allegation that, “Daniel has had his parents execute a new patient advocate designation naming himself as PA [patient advocate].” The opinion also stated that “petitioner filed an emergency petition for an ex parte order regarding LAV’s residency, alleging that Daniel was unilaterally moving LAV to a town three hours from her current location.”
Based on the Court of Appeals’ review of the hearing transcript, the 22nd Circuit Court judge’s ruling was summarized thusly: “The probate court dismissed the case, making the following declaration: ‘So, powers of attorney (POA) not being contested, I am going to find both the guardianship and the conservatorship case there is a lesser means and a less restrictive means with which to keep [LAV] protected . . . I find that there’s not ground because there is a valid power of attorney. I’m going to dismiss the guardianship case and the conservatorship case.’ Petitioner again noted that he was contesting whether the POA was being used properly, and the probate court asked whether LAV was living outside of the probate court’s county. Upon receiving confirmation, the probate court replied, ‘You file up north and say it’s not being used properly. [I’m] out.'” In other words, the venue was improper.
The Judge then issued two orders, closing the case. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the orders included a “paucity of information” and neglected to “mention venue.” This was an error of law, according to the Court of Appeals’ opinion: “Improper venue is not a grounds for dismissal;” the “only remedy provided for improper venue is a motion for change of venue.” The judges of the Court of Appeals explained: “Once there were indications that venue was improper, either a party needed to move to change venue or the probate court needed to consider a change of venue with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Because neither occurred, the probate court’s dismissal of the action was an error of law and therefore an abuse of discretion.”
The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court because, quite simply, during a two-hour hearing held to decide the matter the judge had not listened to the petitioner’s arguments concerning an alleged abuse of the “valid” power of attorney already in place. “Instead of listening to the merits of the argument, the probate court proceeded to dismiss the case in part because the validity of the POA was not being contested.”
The Court of Appeals panel concluded that the “the probate court also abused its discretion in dismissing the action on its merits.”
Judge Owdziej’s rulings were reversed on appeal and the case filed to decide issues related to the parental guardianship of LAV was sent back to the 22nd Circuit Court.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.