of a guardian has no effect on the tolling of the statute of limitations. For instance, in Weaver v. Edwin Shaw Hosp., 104 Ohio St.3d 390, 819 N.E.2d 1079, 1081 (2004), the Ohio Supreme Court considered its state statute providing that, where “a per ded Citizens of Albuquerque, 939 F.Supp. 835, 838 (D.N.M.1996) (construing New Mexico’s tolling statute to continue in effect as to mentally incompetent persons even if they acquire a general guardian who may legally sue on their behalf); Alber v. Ill. Dept. of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities, 786 F.Supp. 1340, 1359 (N.D.Ill.1992) (recognizing that, under Illinois law, the tolling statute covering the mentally incompetent is not avoided upon appointment of a guardian); Emerson v. S. Ry. Co., 404 So.2d 576, 579 (Ala.1981) (<HOLDING>); Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, 187
holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations holding that washingtons statute tolls the statute of limitations for a legally incompetent person notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian this is so because the right to the tolling statute vests in the incompetent person not in the guardian from this premise it follows that the guardians subsequent actions on the incompetent persons behalf should have no additional effect upon the statute of limitations unless they result in res judicata holding that the appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent or nonage person does not have the effect of commencing the running of the period of limitations tolled by virtue of the disability holding that for causes of action not time barred as of the date of the trustees appointment the limitation period is tolled for an additional two years from the date of appointment holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running