[ex 98C MI Dude]

The court stated on page nine that this was not a de novo review, and upon reading the entire ruling, it became evident that it was the guardianship court that actually reviewed the evidence requested in the appeal. The presiding judge was Greer in the guardianship court. Therefore, the appellate court DID NOT review any new evidence, but left it up to Greer. They did not see or hear any of the evidence that Greer did not allow. You contention is wrong.

[atruelady]

Yes, because how can the judge say is is not a de novo hearing when he must act on the new law passed (that is how he GOT the case)?

[ContemptofCourt]

C'mon, you can do better than that...they said it was not a de novo review, and then said that they conducted what was essentially a de novo review of the evidence and, even if the standard had been de novo, would have reached the same conclusion as Greer. Thats on pages 9-10.

While we may disagree, I would appreciate you at least being honest.