Short answer. The guardian or guardian ad litem may, with prior court approval, do anything on the ward's behalf in the expropriation proceeding that the minor or person judicially declared incompetent could have done themselves if they were of age or competent.
What the law says
The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or of a person judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for public use or purpose of property belonging to such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in such proceedings if he were of age or competent.
Rule 67, Section 14 — Power of guardian in such proceedings. Read the full provision →
Who steps in for a minor or incompetent owner
Where the property subject to expropriation belongs to a minor or to someone judicially declared incompetent, that owner cannot personally participate in the proceedings the way a capacitated adult owner could. The rule fills that gap by authorizing the guardian or guardian ad litem to act on the ward's behalf, so the ward's interests are represented rather than left unaddressed simply because the ward cannot act for themselves.
Prior court approval is required
The guardian's authority is not automatic or unlimited; the guardian must first obtain the approval of the court before doing and performing any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation on the ward's behalf, ensuring the court oversees decisions affecting the ward's property interests. This prior-approval requirement guards against a guardian making choices about the ward's property that the ward, if capacitated, might not have made, and it applies to each act the guardian takes, not just to the guardianship appointment as a whole.
The scope matches what the ward could have done
Once approved, the guardian may do anything in the expropriation proceedings that the minor or incompetent person could have done if they were of age or competent — the guardian effectively steps into the ward's shoes for purposes of the proceeding, no more and no less. That includes participating in the valuation process and receiving compensation on the ward's behalf, always subject to the court's prior approval of the specific act.
Why this matters for a ward's property
Expropriation proceedings involve real deadlines — objecting to the right to expropriate, responding to a commissioners' report, accepting or contesting compensation — and a minor or incompetent owner cannot meet those deadlines unaided. Channeling participation through a court-supervised guardian keeps the ward's interest represented at every stage without handing the guardian unchecked control over the ward's property, since the same court that oversees the guardianship also oversees each specific act taken in the expropriation case itself.
Related provisions
- Rule 67, Section 14 — Power of guardian in such proceedings
- Rule 67, Section 1 — The complaint
- Rule 67, Section 9 — Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims