REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2045 Guardian ad litem for unborn persons.
Sec. 2045.
(1) If in an action or proceeding, other than in probate court, it appears that a person not in being may become entitled to a property interest, real or personal, legal or equitable, involved in or affected by the action or proceeding, and the interest of the unborn person is not or cannot otherwise properly be represented and protected, the court, upon its own motion, or upon the motion of any party, may appoint a suitable person to appear and act as guardian ad litem of the unborn person. The guardian ad litem is authorized to engage counsel and do whatever is necessary to defend and protect the interest of the unborn person. A judgment or order made after the appointment shall be conclusive upon the unborn person for whom a guardian was appointed.
(2) The guardian ad litem may be removed by the court which appointed him, without notice, when it appears to the court to be for the best interests of the ward. The guardian ad litem may be allowed reasonable compensation by the court appointing him, to be paid and taxed as a cost of the proceedings as directed by the court.
History: Add. 1968, Act 292, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2022 · leading case:
O'NEILL v. Morse, 188 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 1971).
O'NEILL v. Morse, 188 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 1971).
· cites it 4× “" MCLA § 600.2045 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 27A.”
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013).
“2d 237 (1951) (authorizing appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of an unborn child); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2045 (1996); Minn.”
Toth v. Goree, 237 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 600.2045; MSA 27A.2045. The analogy from the protection of the *312 unborn's rights in property law to a "protection" in tort law is not a neat one when there has been no birth.”
Gaddis v. United States, 381 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2004).
“5/27-4 (West 2004); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2045 (West 2004); N.”
Alexander v. City of Detroit, 398 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“and MCL 600.2045; MSA 27A.2045. Our independent review of the court rules and statutes, however, persuades us that the circuit court in this case did not exceed the scope of its authority when it appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the unlocated class members and their…”
Thompson v. Ryobi Ltd. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2045 (e) (defining “misuse” to include “uses contrary to a warning or instruction .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.