475.078. Effect of adjudication. — 1. An adjudication of partial incapacity or partial disability does not operate to impose upon the ward or protectee any legal disability provided by law except to the extent specified in the order of adjudication, provided that the court shall not impose upon the ward or protectee any legal disability other than those which are consistent with the condition of the ward or protectee.
2. An adjudication of incapacity or disability does operate to impose upon the ward or protectee all legal disabilities provided by law, except to the extent specified in the order of adjudication or otherwise in this chapter, and provided further that the court is without authority to impose any legal disability upon a disabled person for whom a conservator has been appointed by reason of the person's disappearance, detention, or confinement.
3. A person who has been adjudicated incapacitated or disabled or both shall be presumed to be incompetent, except as otherwise specified in this chapter. A person who has been adjudicated partially incapacitated or partially disabled or both shall be presumed to be competent. The court at any time after a hearing on the question may determine that an incapacitated, disabled, or partially incapacitated or partially disabled person is incompetent for some purposes and competent for other purposes.
4. The court may expressly enter an order that the ward's or protectee's right to vote shall be retained even though the ward or protectee is otherwise totally incapacitated; that the ward or protectee is permitted to drive a motor vehicle if the ward or protectee can pass the required driving test; or that the ward or protectee retains the right to marry.
Notes of Decisions
Hugenel v. Est. of Keller, 867 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “ISSUES Defendant raises five issues, the first three of which may be summarized as: (1) the trial court erred in finding that Karl did not have testamentary capacity because of a presumption of incompetency pursuant to § 475.078, based upon the prior appointment of a guardian;…”
Est. of Posey v. Bergin, 299 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “Finally, in his fourth and last point, Father alleges that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law in finding that he is not allowed to vote because the court has authority pursuant to Section 475.”
Est. of Rogers v. Battista, 125 S.W.3d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “We note that section 475.078 expressly provides that a person such as Mr.”
Matter of Nelson, 891 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Section 475.078(3) provides that someone who has been previously adjudicated to be incapacitated or disabled shall be presumed to be “incompetent.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.078(3) — 3 cases
Hugenel v. Est. of Keller, 867 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
“ISSUES Defendant raises five issues, the first three of which may be summarized as: (1) the trial court erred in finding that Karl did not have testamentary capacity because of a presumption of incompetency pursuant to § 475.078, based upon the prior appointment of a guardian;…”
Est. of Posey v. Bergin, 299 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Finally, in his fourth and last point, Father alleges that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law in finding that he is not allowed to vote because the court has authority pursuant to Section 475.”
Matter of Nelson, 891 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“Section 475.078(3) provides that someone who has been previously adjudicated to be incapacitated or disabled shall be presumed to be “incompetent.”
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.