holding that guardians ad litem act as surrogates of the court in settlement hearings and thus have judicial immunity
How later courts described this case
- holding that guardians ad litem act as surrogates of the court in settlement hearings and thus have judicial immunity
- applying modern rule in contingent fee case, but noting substantial performance exception, which prevents client from discharging attorney on eve of settlement to avoid paying contingent fee
- A GAL appointed to investigate and make recommendations on a proposed tort settlement within a guardianship proceeding was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as they were “operating as an arm of the court, whatever the ambiguities of [their] appointment.”
- Guardians ad litem in guardianship proceedings involving court approval of settlements of civil claims of incompetents act as an arm of the court and are therefore entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from civil liability.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Johnson, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — The issues presented in this case involve the resolution of whether collateral estoppel bars the lawsuit over the legal fees and whether there is guardian ad litem immunity. I agree with the majority’s disposition of those issues.
*334 In dicta, the majority goes on to review, under "attorney fees”, an issue not presented at the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or here. This discussion creates and resolves issues which are not argued, briefed, nor properly before us. I do not agree we should, on the limited summary judgment record before us, review the propriety of the attorney fees. The resolution of that issue properly should be addressed by the parties at trial on remand.
The majority’s discussion is obiter dictum and, as such, is not helpful nor binding on the trial court.
Brachtenbach and Smith, JJ., concur with Johnson, J.
Reconsideration denied November 2, 1994.