In the Matter of Wurm

Dissenting Opinion

Staton, P.J.

I dissent from the Majority Opinion for these reasons:(1) The statutory interpretation of “incompetent” is too broad,

*177(2) Mrs. Wurm’s constitutional rights have been violated;(3) The evidence is insufficient to establish a guardianship. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.

I

Incompetent

The Majority Opinion concludes that a person’s competency “. . . should concern his total physiology both physical and mental. . . .” It suggests that to “. . . exclude an evaluation of a person’s mental awareness, under the rubrics ‘old age, infirmity or other incapacity’…