McGee v. Hayes
127 Cal. 336, 59 P. 767 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a proceeding to appoint a guardian for an allegedly incompetent person, statutory notice requirements regarding the time and place of the hearing are jurisdictional and must be strictly followed; the incompetent person's physical presence at the hearing or apparent consent does not cure a defective notice or waive this requirement.
Facts:
- Hastings filed a petition to be appointed guardian of the person and estate of William L. McGee, alleging McGee was an incompetent person.
- A judge issued an order setting a hearing for February 23, 1897, but the order failed to specify the place or hour of the hearing.
- The order directed that notice of the time and place of the hearing be given to McGee, but the only document served on him was a copy of the incomplete order.
- On February 23, the court continued the hearing to "Tuesday, March 3, 1897."
- McGee was physically present at a hearing where he allegedly requested that the guardianship petition be granted.
- The court issued its order appointing Hastings as guardian on March 2, 1897, one day before the scheduled continued hearing.
- Acting as guardian, Hastings initiated a forcible entry and detainer action against a defendant occupying property owned by McGee.
Procedural Posture:
- Hastings, acting as guardian for McGee, sued the defendant for forcible entry and detainer in a trial court.
- A jury rendered a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Hastings.
- The trial court entered a judgment restoring possession of the premises to Hastings.
- The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The defendant appealed both the judgment and the order denying a new trial to this appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an allegedly incompetent person when the statutory notice requirements are not met, even if the person is physically present at the hearing and appears to consent?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. A court does not have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an allegedly incompetent person when statutory notice requirements are not met. The court reasoned that the statute (Code of Civil Procedure, section 1763) explicitly requires that notice of the 'time and place' of the hearing be given to the supposed incompetent person. Service of an order that omits the place of the hearing is defective and fails to confer jurisdiction. Furthermore, an incompetent person is, by definition, legally incapable of consenting to the court's jurisdiction or waiving the fundamental procedural requirement of notice, so his physical presence and request to grant the petition are legally meaningless. The court also found the appointment order was void because it was made prematurely on March 2, when the hearing had been continued to March 3. Because these jurisdictional defects were apparent on the face of the record, the guardianship order was void and could be attacked collaterally in this separate proceeding.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the principle that due process in proceedings that deprive an individual of liberty or property rights, such as a guardianship, requires strict adherence to statutory procedures. It establishes that for an allegedly incompetent person, procedural safeguards like notice are not waivable, as the individual lacks the legal capacity to make such a waiver. The case solidifies the rule that if a court's lack of jurisdiction is evident from the official record of the proceedings, its judgment is void and can be challenged in a subsequent, unrelated case (a collateral attack). This holding protects vulnerable individuals by ensuring courts cannot bypass fundamental procedural requirements before appointing a guardian.
