J-A09025-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN RE: M.K., AN ALLEGED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INCAPACITATED PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA :
:
APPEAL OF: M.K. :
:
:
:
: No. 1079 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2023-01314
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., BECK, J., and LANE, J. MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: July 10, 2025 M.K. (Appellant/Respondent) appeals from the order granting the petition filed by L.R. (Appellee/Petitioner) seeking to appoint Appellee guardian of the person and estate of Appellant. Appellant argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion in granting Appellee’s petition. After review, we affirm based on the orphans’ court’s opinion.
The orphans’ court briefly summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows:
On December 12, 2023, [Appellee] filed a petition for adjudication of incapacity and appointment of permanent guardian. A citation was issued on [Appellant] and a hearing was scheduled for February 2, 2024. On February 5, 2024, the parties submitted an agreed order which kept the existing power of attorney, dated November 12, 2019, [in] which [Appellant] had listed [Appellee]
as her agent, would remain in effect until a hearing scheduled on April 29, 2024. At the hearing, [the] parties stipulated to [Appellant’s] incapacity. Following the April 29[, 2024] hearing, the court issued an order in which it found that, pursuant to In re
J-A09025-25
Sylvester, 598 A.2d 76, 77 (Pa. Super. 1991), there had been insufficient evidence to show that there was “good cause” that [Appellee, the] present power of attorney[,] should be disqualified or otherwise prevented from becoming [Appellant’s] guardian.
However, the court was not yet prepared to make a final decision on the case and instead ordered [Appellee] to prepare and submit an accounting to the court on or before July 15, 2024, and set a status conference for July 30, 2024. On August 6, 2024, following receipt of the accounting and the status conference, the court entered a final order granting [Appellee’s] petition and appointing [Appellee] as guardian of the person and estate of [Appellant].
On September 5, 2024, [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal . . . .
Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/30/24, at 1 (some formatting altered). Both the orphans’ court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:
Whether the [orphans’] court abused its discretion naming [Appellee as] Appellant’s guardian, where the [the orphans’ court]
refuses to take into account [] Appellant’s wishes, and where the relationship between [] Appellant and [Appellee] has been severed?
Appellant’s Brief at 14 (formatting altered).
Appellant argues that the orphans’ court’s decision to appoint Appellee as Appellant’s guardian was an abuse of discretion because it disregarded Appellant’s wishes, overlooked the opinion of an examining clinical psychologist and court-appointed guardian ad litem, and failed to consider that the relationship between Appellant and Appellee had broken down. See id. at 18-28.
“Once a court determines an individual is incapacitated and in need of a guardian, it becomes the court’s responsibility to appoint a person or entity to
3
J-A09025-25
serve as guardian.” In re C.A.J., 319 A.3d 564, 572 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).
When deciding who shall serve as guardian of the person, the court may consider the preference of the incapacitated person.
The selection of a guardian is within the sound discretion of the orphans’ court, and this Court will not disturb that selection absent an abuse of discretion. The orphans’ court may not, however, appoint a person whose interests conflict with those of the incapacitated person unless no other alternative exists. Any family relationship to such individual, shall not, by itself, be considered an interest adverse to the alleged incapacitated person.
Id. (citations omitted and formatting altered).
Further,
[a] principal may nominate, by a durable power of attorney, the guardian of [her] estate or of [her] person for consideration by the court if incapacity proceedings for the principal’s estate or person are thereafter commenced. The court shall make its appointment in accordance with the principal’s most recent nomination in a durable power of attorney except for good cause or disqualification.
20 Pa.C.S. § 5604(c)(2).
Here, the orphans’ court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s arguments and concluded that she was not entitled to relief. See Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 2- 16. Following our review of the record, the parties’ arguments, and the
4
J-A09025-25
orphans’ court’s conclusions, we discern no abuse of discretion, and we affirm on the basis of the orphans’ court’s opinion.1 See id.2 Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
DATE: 07/10/2025
____________________________________________
1 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the orphans’ court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings. 2 In the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 5 of the orphans’ court’s
opinion, there is a typo, and the word “incredible” should read “incredibly.” See Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 5. Additionally, there is a typo on page 10, and the cite to “20 Pa.C.S. § 5604(2)” should read “20 Pa.C.S. § 5604(c)(2).” See id. at 10. We also note that the orphans’ court quotes In re Estate of Rodgers, 898 WDA 2018, 2019 WL 1772009 (Pa. Super. filed Apr. 22, 2019) (unpublished mem.). See id. at 14. While unpublished cases of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), Rodgers was filed on April 22, 2019. However, the language from Rodgers was a summary of factors to consider when determining whether a conflict of interest exists under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511, and the factors noted are supported by both binding and persuasive authority. See, e.g., Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 657 A.2d 34, 39 (Pa. Super. 1995); Commonwealth, Dep’t of Public Welfare v. Bean, 558 A.2d 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); Cruver v. Mitchell, 656 S.E.2d 269 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008); Matter of Waldron, 910 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). This Court may rely on the decisions of other states for persuasive authority. See Hill v. Slippery Rock Univ., 138 A.3d 673, 679 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016) (noting that “the decisions of other states are not binding authority for this Court, although they may be persuasive” (citation omitted)). Further, the orphans’ court thoroughly explained why “any possible adverse interests [Appellee] may have do not rise to a level which would require disqualification.” Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 15.
5
J-A09025-25
IOPINION WITH ORDER
Circulated 06/25/2025 12:57 PM
IN THE COURT COMMON PLEAS OF BEAVER COUN'T'Y, P1?NNSYIAA•NJ4
IN RE: ORPHANS' COURT DIVIS9)AQ e•
No. 2()2;3-01311 =•'• o -v=c
An Alleged Incapacitated PCrsOIi. ) u,m•;' • n c+y
RULE 1925 OPINION r-
•x
On December 12, 2023, Petitioner L= R• filed aPetition for Adjudication o1*
Incapacity and Appointment of Pennaltent Guardialt. A Citation was issued Oil Respondent -
_and aImuing was scheduled Ii)r Febm r) ,2, 2021. On Febrtlm},5, 2021, the parties stibiilitted ati agreed Order which kept the exis6iig Power of Attorney, dated November 12, 2019, which Respondent had listed Pe6lioner as her Agent, would retuain in effect until aHealing scheduled oil April 29, 2024. At the herring, pw-tics stiptilated to die Respondent's incapacity. Following the April 29 Hearing, the Court issued an Order in which it found that, pursuant to In w Sj hresler, 598 A.2d 76, 77 (Pa. Super. 1991), there had been insufficient evidence to show that there was " good cause" that present Power of Attonicy should be disclualiliecl or othemisc prevented from becoming the Respondent's Guardiali. However, the Court was not yet prepared to make afinal decision on the case wid instead ordered the Petitioner to prepire and subinit iii) accomiting to the Court on or before July 15, 20`11, wid set astatus conference forJuly 30, 2024. On, August G, 2024, 1o11oaing receipt ol' the Accounting wid the Status Conlerence, the Court entered aFinal Order gnwiting the Petition wid appointing It_R_as Guardian ol'tlie Person and Estate of Me R=. Oil September .5, 2024, Respondent Iiled anotice of appeal mid, on October 8, 2024, a Concise Statement ()fM utters Complained of on Appeal. The Court enters the Iollming Opillloil
under Rule 1925(x)(1).
ISSUES RAISED
Respondents rusc live issues ol, appeal, arg,►iting that the Court abused its discretion when it Mulled LM R• as Gu ardiill) when: ( l) All testimony presented al tile: Heating confirmed shat the relationsltil) hchvecli die Respondent mid the Petitioner had broken down, (2) The Coring Appointed Guardian Ad I•itcrin recomnlcnrled iltat the Petitioner not be appointed guardian, will
that it neutral third-pally orgaiiizadon be: named plardian, ( 3) The Agent breached lter fiduciary duty
by refusing to comply with file Ivishcs Of tllc Respondent that slic be allowed to retunn to the Respondent's residence fj•om assisted living with the condition that necess;uy lionic care he provided to the Respondetnl, R) The Petitioner had aconflict of interest It, that she had allowed her brother to trove info the Respondent's home mid she Would have to remove her brother from the Respondent's home it'shc were allowed to rdurn lion)c, (,5) Tie Coun arbitruily ipiored the relx)rt ol` an I-.xl)cn that ( lie ptincil)al could return luonc tl' gmrc[) 1)roper support.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At the Hearing, the Petitioner's first iitness was AM 11•, the sister ohlie Pc6tio licr
and gt -ai iddau6dntcr of ( lie Respondent. Sh e te stified that the Respond ent's liusbsuul passed away in
:September of 202:3 and that she has bcen residing in Villa st, Joseph ill Badcn, Pc►msylvM►ia, since (;)ctohcr of' 2023. He wi ig7nulsclipr al 12. Prior to Respondent's slay at Villa St. Joscph, site and the Petitioner were assisting; the Respondent in paying her bills, maintaining her house, scheduling in-l)on)c cue. M. at 13-14.She was able to facilitate sonic of these actions, despite residing in Maryland at the tituc, because Respondent had ajoint bank account «7tli die witness. M. at 13, 16. Slic would also coordinate care for Respondent throug4i the neighbor, Pl4m 1-10 Who is ( lie Respondent's neig4ibor. k/. at 15. Presently, the Petitioner sends the bills from Vi11a:Sl Joscph to the
3
mli(ness to have leer pay tllcitl from the Joitit accounts. Id. al 19, 19. At the link of the Hearing, the checking accoutll hell{ $39,082.72 alld the savings account held $65,072.53. Id. at 19.
Respondent ►vas receiving daily aid, roughly during COVID onmards, from Petitioner, Witness, aild PM I-10. Id. at 20. Respondent was gctlenally resistatit to ;issislancc, starting with ]lot notilying anyone that her litisNuid had been hospitalized and generally stalling wily attempts to
get ill-home care. Id a( 21, 22. After inhole care was scheduled, Respondent. would [] tell cancel
the appointinen(s, lock ( lie (
Tool', mid take the phone oll'the ] look Ill order to prevent till.' in-Mollie
care prom facilitating their seniccs. I(L at 22. A number ol'cargPnng sentices were cycled Ihrougll the ] tome, as Respondent would accuse tlicin of 'stealing. Id. at 23. This in-lionic care lasted from April of 2023 till lien inuisfer to Villa Si Joseph in September of* 2023. Id.
'Ille ►►'ittmcss (e:stilied that througliout ;ill of these events, ( lie Petitioner was involved wid
active in helping the Respondent. Id. al 23. She further staled that she believed the Petitioner to be
the best suited to being Guardiaii of the Respondent. Id. .
it 26. Site also outlined her concerns Ilia( a
dilyd-party Guardian may be islet ►►itli resistance from the Respondent, given her pattern ol'1)chavior with the in-home caregivers. Id. Her concenis were also that should she return home, there are concenis 6tiven her inability (omatlage her own medications as site pre►iously ►v;is not taking them properly day today. Id. at 29, 30. Additionally, the m6ti c—is ()udil1Cd issues that plagued the
Respondent while staying at home wid without 21-7 care. These included: slip alid IAs, repeated
calls that lier basement ► v;ts flooding ► hen it wasn't, repeated Ialse alanu calls to 91 1 , asituation
where aglass stool door remained broken ►►ith strewn about glass for weeks, and general resistaticc to in-home help agencies. Id. al 30-,3`h
Oil cross-exalninaticin, the Witness was asked ►dtether (he Respondent had beell 11()1111' S111C( September of 20`1:3, to which site responded Iliac (lie Respondent had not been home since site was admitted to ( lie hospital lily aIJTI ill 2023. Id. at ;34. Site Ihcn stated That all Ilex observations cif the
Rcsponcicnt'% itltctactiolls wilh at-(rune careWwrs ►verc fi•on) March 2023 to Sepicn)ber 2023. Id She staled that slic acknowledged the Respondem's desire to retnni home and (flat the dcusion for her to renudn it Villa St.Joseph was nol made lib4ply or %%ilhoul sibriliftwit consideration, input (1.011) others, and aIo6gslical and administmlive analysis of [lie costs ,uld bellefits pl at-hon)c care versus remaining at Villa Sl. Joseph. Id. at 34, 35. She stated plat she didn't believe that athird-party b'ltardiall Would Ititve InadC ally dilfcrcut decisions dim those made by her wid the Petitioner. Id at 36. She slalcd [ flat the Petitioner is ca-owner ol" Respondent's home a)ld that when they received reports From Villa St. Joseph regarding the Respondent's prognosis, [ lie Petitioner decider( to allow tlieir brodier to refill the home in order to prevent it from remaining :►cant. Id. at 37, 38. She elaitlted that the Respondent appeared to be much better since she had been placed in the care of' Villa St. Joseph, but that she slid not believe she would continue to improve if she retuned home. Id a( 39. Shc expressed her coliculls with the Cost% associated ►►7t11 lull-lnllc Ill holllc care, while noling that the facility she is in presend) ,is Billy covered by Respondent's longteen cu-cinsuruicc. Id. at 41. She flullicr noted that said instinuicc would not be able to cover more thaii 5hours aday of in-home c:u-e ,uul only for the first year, she hitil►cr noted that Rcsponcicnt'% income as she was a►►,u•e of ►vas 1101 el)oll&4I to tacih[alc such cxpenses either. Id. at 414 4. However, there is some question of* all outswiding pension the Respondent may he entitled to relating to her late- ]ImAnuul. Id.
Next the witness was questioner( by file Guardi,ui Ad 1atcm. Id. at 46. She testified that up until the hem ing, she has It)aulla►ned I good relationship ►►ith Respondent, but rccoplires that Respondent has become increasingly agitaled aild disu-lisdill of Petitioner clue to her brim; unable to return honic. Id at 4649. She also testified that site had no real relationship %%ith file Respondent's
-14W-. Id
sisters nor ►►as site t'amiliar ml,th0 1
Petitioner next called P_ Ho the Respondent's neig4ibor rind friend, as aA61ness. M. at ,51. She lives till-cc houses ill) front the Rcspontic►a and has served as asort ol'volunteer cal-ctriver Ibr tilt Respondent for about six ycru•s. Id. at 52. She testified that over time, the Respondent was having difficulty taking her tncdicalions regularly and that steeling ru•ound 2018 site had to assisl the Respondent ill talking her medications daily. Id. at 53, 54. Si telurthcr state([ dial as the Respondent declined, site had several falls auul had on multiple occasions left die oven on with things it] it, crlougli that she became concerned for the Respondent's sailety. M. at 55, 56. She further stated that at one point tie Respondent lead been scammed fly acaller on the tclephone. M. at 57, 58. In regards to the in-home caregivers, site lestified that Respondent had accused Ills first caregiver of stealing food auxl various other dlilip, but when the %%imcss checked all of the items were still in the house. Id. al 58, 59. She further stated that the Respondent's mental state ha(I declined even before her hospitalization in September of 20`1;3. Id. at 60. She claimed that the Respondent was contused a lot, %vas unable to mite tiings down or repeal thine like phone numbers, aid site %%-.is formatting to cat. Irl. at 60, 61. Prior to her placement in Villa St Joseph, according to the witness, the Respondent was incredible please(I %villi the (lcc►sions auld care dictated by the Petitioner raid AM, Id at 62.
On cross, the witness conlinricd that the Respondent stni&%4cd to takc lies -medications
regularly, but refitted that any insinuation that site believed this % vas tie source of leer suspicious or
awessive behavior. Id at 63, 64. Furthermore, site stated that she would regmia rly attend tilt Respondent's doctor ammittl tile nts, since the Respondent would forget what was told to her by (lie doctor;. Id at 64. \Vfleit questioned byl tine Guardian Ad I.item, she confinned dial the relationship between the Respondent raid the Petitioner had broken down as at result of the Respondent's placeticnt in along--term care facility. Id at 67-69.
6
'I'lle third witness called by tale Petitioner was [ lie Petitioner herself, l4MR .She testified [ flat site was [ he Respondent's grlal(ldailgllter an(1 her 4,uni under aGencral Durable Power of Altonicy executed in 2019. Id. a[ 70-73. In 2013, Peli(ioner was trwislcrl•ed all interest 111 (tic Itcspolulent's hotllc by [lie Respondent and her husband. Ire. at 75. She testified dial in mid- September of* 2023`, upon Respondent's 1)lacctllcnt in Villa St joscpll w)d subsequent llloVe111et11 to (lie memory care unit, she entered into alornial lease agi'eenleilt %%ilh K=K= in which be was renting wid residing ill Rcspondent's residence. Irl. at 7()-78. This decision w:ts reacled alter recommendations by doctors that Respondent ►tias best suited to slay at Villa St. Joseph :uld in consideration dial licither the Petitioner nor her sister would be able to rc&nil:u'ly check oil the property. M. at 77, 78. Brother pays $800.1 month oil atllollill to iilolldi Icase, a.11 olwhicll is directed directly to Respondent's benefit. Id. at 78.
She testified [ hat 1)tyor to 2023, her ais. istauec as an agent titiasn'( needed as nntcll. M. at 79.
Follming the death of Respondent's lulsb:uld, slit stepped up to lielp deal %%ith paying [lie Respondent's bills, working with PM to gel Respondent to doctor's appointments, iii well ati triaging situations where she was snaking false alarm 911 calls. Id at 79-80. She :uid her sister worked lobludier to.attempt to set up in-home care for die respondent using her long-tcrin care instirmice. Id.
at 81, 82. She icstiticd that there were sitplilicwli issues with setting up at home c:u-
cFor Respondent.
Ire. at 82-84. Respondent did not inisl the home care :d(Ics, would ofiell [lot let them in the home, or would not wiswer the plione. M. at 82, 83.
Afier the recommendation of•3 different physicians who were concerned for the salc(y wed well-being of'tlic Respondent as aresult of lier li%ing lionle alone alld that in her own opinion, tdiintp were not goingwell. M. at 86. \V111le the al ] ionic care was limited, Villa St.Joseph was afantastic facility .uid was fully covered 1)y the Rcspoii(Icnt's lonertend care insln:ulce. Id at 86.111C Petitioner claims she mas focused on making sure the Respondent was gelling the best possible care. M. a( 87.
7
1'ctitioner testifier! I.ltat up until T]miksgiving of 202:3, she and Respondent had regular contact. M. at 88. After adillicult phone conversation on that day, the Petitioner glut tier sister decided to split their approach. Id. at 89. Petitioner m;dnt;uns regular contact with the facility, while sister maintains communications with Respondent. M. Petitioner continues to push for die Respondent to have [lie !test duality of life possible, including! raving tier moved to asingle room. Id.
at 91. Petitioner is in the process of mrninb back locally to tic closer %vitlt tier family and take amore active role in ruing fir Respondent. Id at 112.
Petitioner testified dirt tic Respondent looks better thmi site leas in years and attributes that to tier time at Villa St. Joseph. lei. at 89. She justifies tier decision to keep Respondent in the facility duc to the care site is recek ng aril the increased quality of life compared to being at honic. M at 89, 90. She plans, if made 6mardiait, to continue to stay in direct, regular contact tvillt the facility to ensure die best possible care for Respondem, acid to take direct control of Respondent's fitimcial allairs. Id. at 90,91. iletitioner then event oil to explain her concerns that athird-patny guardian smice would needlcsslydeplete Respondent's resources wid drat site feats that il'such aguardian m;v somehow convinced to remove Respondent from Villa St. Joseph, she may not be able to get .ibcd there again wid instead CIA up in some lesser facility. Id. at 9:3.
Oil cross exatiiination, Petitioner acknowledged that she recognized dial Respondent was experiencing some stress and was unhappy to be in afacility wid Wished to return lionic. Id. at 94, 9.). Site further noted that she had concens dial Respondent has a history ohiot regiflarly taking her medications while at home, but Ims [)cell compliant trhilc at Villa St. Joseph. Id.. at 95, phi. She recognized that no tbird- party guardimshil> mis in place prior and Was unable to say whether or not they would he able to successf idly administer nicdications to !respondent. ld. al 96. Petitioner explained dial die Respondent's decline %%ws progressive mid over yeas, not necessarily related to missing medications. IrL at 97, 98. She reaftinned her desire to be gmardian and that none of the issues raised impede her ability to cure leer [ter tn-.utdmother. Id. at 98, 99. When waked il* lter brolher's lease would be all issue in returning Respomicrlt to her home, site csplained that Ile is ou anloulh to ltlonth lease and undersLmds that he nr.1y have to lave. Id. at 99, 100. ] n regards to the issue ohlic Respondent's husband's pcnsloll, she explained thal site is a►►are of it, Ims
submitted the proper applications, :
utd is ►►.►iting fora response i'rom DUCILICsltc I.aghl. trl. al 102-101:
C?n exsunination'by the Guardian Ad I.itcm, Petitioner ►►m clttcs6oned about her relationship 16111 11cslxtndcut. IrL at 104.7u regards to the difficult cottversatioll on "lltatiksgiving of 2023, which the Petitioner marks :Ls tic start of die breakdown ill their relationship, Petitioner states that the conversation broke down
► hen lltc Respoucleut begin to ask ►vk►y Petitioner %%-as keeping her in Villa St. Joseph. Ira. at 105. Resimudent
expressed her unhappiness and claimed Petitioner u.Ls staking her worse. M. She also ►►.ts concerned about her money ;but Petitioner altemptcd to calm her by explaitliug it was in Respondent's bank account and she would be happy to show it to lter..M. When asked about llicir relationship previous to this event, she responded that it ►►.Ls largely good, ►►ith some rough spats when Reslmlident's hnsNuu %%-.Is placed in along- ten,, care facility. IrL at I06.'llterc ►►ws all issue during this tilne where Rcspolalcul told the facility not to contact Petitioner .old instead sclicl the itivoicc to Respondent, these were thell unpaid and dei Pcli6oncr is ill the Im-wess ol'selding this bill through tllestate. lrl. at 107.
"111e Respoltdeltl's only (ailed ► citiless was the Respomlent herself: h/. at 117. She state(] dial slic
wanted 10 go hollte soul insinuated fatal- Petitioner didn't know ►► ital was best for her. M. it 118. When asked
if* si te wo uld accept ] tell) if necessary to return 110111c, she struggled to answer the question directly, but
ultimately agreed il' it was lrecessary 1'or her to return home. Irl. at 119, 120. Oil cross-examination, site claimed to lie taking her medications mlcf that tie only times slte forgot in the past were when site would drop die pills in the bed at night. h/ at 121. Site identified, generally, some of 1110 medications site takes but indicated her co illusion :LS to wily site 1%-as being given dementia medicaliorls ►►'hell she dldll't sec that site had adiagnosis for dementia. M. at 121, 122. When asked about whether or ]tot she would agree ►eitlt athird- party guardian if they decided to keep her at Villa St. Joseph, site was Iron-cominitud and stated that there ►►;u; uo possibility thal site would agree to stay al Villa St. Joseph. Ira. al 125, 126. Oil examination by the Guardi:ul Ad Utem, the Rcsixtndew testified that sale ►►as disapl>oinled ill the actions ol'the Petitioner. Id at 1131.
9
'l'llcGuardian Ad [.item's Reporl curd her reconlmendatiou were submitted to tllc Court. ` -
lic report
largely supporled/nlltnickcd till: jestrrllony at talc Hearing. llie Guardian Ad IActll issue([ two suggestions, either drat aprivate guardianship semice he appointed outright or that aUmonth trial baits %vith apri%ate guardianship senice be imposed, %% ith astatus conference at the end of the term to sec if Petitioner and All' could reestablish apositivc relationship. Girurli.u, A(/ Menu :4 Rcpwi at Page 7. At the Heariug, the Guardian[ Ad Litcm stated that slrc ltias 1"ling tonards the second option alter healing the testimony. !L7: at 116. The Guardian Ad I. tem cites tie stress and frustration drat die Respondent has regarding her relationship kith the Petitioncr a.s " good cause" under 20 Pa. C.S. 45604(2) to exclude the Petitioner from becoming Guardian. CAL Rcyx»r at 7. It is worth noting drat the Guardiani Ad I.atctll recognizes that die Petitioner hens acted'vidi the Repondcnt's hest interests in mind Uld belicvcs that [lie arlinlosily to%mfls the Petitioner is aresult ol'dic Respondent's dementia and confusion. M. at 5.
Two csl>cri reponls time submitted to the Court, along with dicir lindiup, both 4"'hiell supported a littc[illg of incapacity. The Court revielscd tic lestrnlony al trial, die cxpell relaorls, .urd the Guardian Ad Litern's rclx>rl and ultimately found that there 1+as insullicicnt evidence presented to support the disqualificatioll of the Petitioner as Guardian. The Court issued an order finding the Respondent to be incapacitated and leaving the Power elf Attorney in place %%itll alull guardianship tralrsltion peudnlg the filing of an accounting of tlrc Respondent's assets by (lie Pct liouer. Upon receipt of this accounting, the Court
issued aFinal Order appointiug die Petitioner :
ts Guardian of the rlstatc and Guardian of the Person of
Respondent, A&. ' . 1'urthennore, the Court set forth areview hearing on December 6, 20`14, at 9:00 a.m. in order to continue to assess clrld monitor Reslxxidem'sslatus. Revloident subse(tuently filed tic instant Notice of Appeal curd Concise titatcniew of Matters on Appeal.
10
DISCUSSION
Apiwilate courts must " accord the findings of*an 01 plimis' Court judge; [ lie smile weigrlll ald
effect as ajtp , verdict,° may " ilol (10111 — l) thosC 1i11(hllg^.; A)5Ctil it miiiest en -
or," and ilia)," modify all
Orpliatis' Count decree only Wlile filldiug*s upon which ( lie decree rests are unsuppot -ted 1)),
conllwtent or adequate e6lence or il -there his beeii an en-or ol" law, an abuse ol f discretion, Ma capricious disbelief* of colllpetew evidence." Appcd off,a non, 631 A.2d 176, 182 (Pa. Super.
1903) ( cllfnghi r c: Benson, 615 A.2d 792, 793 ( - Pa. Super. 1992)).
Furthertnore, ( iuc to the existence of* aprevious binding General Durable Power of' Atlol-l)cy which places the Pctitioner as Guardi.ul should tile: Rcsl)ondent bccotne iticapaci(awd, die Court is
required to inake such .
u) appointinelit unless it is shown there is good cause not to or otllen ise a
clisgualilicaiion. 20 Pa. C.S. § 5604(2).
Appell;uit argues that die Cout1 abused its discrclion wlicii it apl)ointcd I R as the Guardiail in light of' the 1o110%%ing:
1. - All testimony presented at the Hearing confirmed that the relationship between the Respondent and the Petitioner had broken down.
'nie Court recognizes diat t11e Respon(leilt is unhapj)y «rith her cutrc;ilt placcinciit at Villa St.
Joseph and that she blames the Petitioner for her placement therc. Howcvcr, this Coun has licard clear and convincing evidence that even thcaugll their relationship is strained, the Petitioner has behaved excellently ill pursuing the best card a%.lilablc 1br file Respondent. Furthenuore, the Couil finds persuasive the testimony relating to the Respondent's general resistance to outside help wad
assist.uice in regrards to her well-being and independcticc. & c H.T. at 21-23, 29-30, 58-59, 82-84.
Additionally, both the lestiniony at trial, file Respondent's own statements, mid the Respondcnl's expert i'epc)rt Al indicate ilia( file Respondent is unaware of lioty much assistance she actually needs wid is only •unicahle to tlic idea of liclp il'
il allows iicr to return home .Scc WE at 119-120, 121,
115-126, Scc alw Depo15ilion of Dr. Thw sat 4,145. Deposition oi'Dr. Kisiat at W.
The Court believes that it is fairly obvious that the Respondent will continue her beliatzor one
way or ( lie other.Should a :third-panty,g
uardian be appointed and she be allowed to return lichee, it
is reasonable based on (lie evidence to assuriic that she will continue to be avoidwit and dismissive of Duty outside lull). The more likely case, f*iven the facls presented ,is that athird-party 6gtartlisui would
see fit to have her remain at Villa St .
Joseph .In such case, she would likely have the smile
breakdomi and stress as she has had with the Petitioner.Scc Dr. Kuial at 19.
Given this doubleedwd sword situation, the Coup is inclined to look instead to die Petitioner's
belimior in light of the eircumstauiccs,lien c1forts Ili inectnig the deeds of'tllc Respondent ,uld her
eflorts to 1o11ow the wishes of the Respondent .I tis undisputed that the Respondent is incapacitated
.lid, by expert tcsfittiony,unable to talc c:u•c of hersell''atxl make decisions about her well-being.
The Petitioner lias admirably performcd her duties as agent , even in spite of the relationship
breakdown. Reslxmndent has been placed in one of,if not ( lie, premier care fiactlitics iii heaver
County.Scc. H.T at 86, Scc also Dr. Kisiat set 18. Petitioner has managed the Respondent '
sassets in
such amay that they Respondent '
sestate has actually gonna under her match .See Pelilioners
Accounting, Furthennore ,Petitioner has taken steps to ensure that, despite keeping her in the
facility,Respotxlent.
is as comfortable as possible sued being taken care. ol. This is c6lenced by
her successfully acquiring ati uuinridual rooin for Respondent wid lacing in constaiii contact with the facility in regards to Iles pond mil's care .1-L?: at H7-H9, 9l.
(riven ( lie above, this Coull finds that the relationship breakdown such ;
Is it is, is not Founds 1< r
disqualification of Petitioner as Guardian.
12
2. The Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem recommended that the Petitioner not be appointed guardian, and that aneutral third-party organization be named guardian..
The Court (foes poll go against (Ile recoilitilelidatlon of the Guardian Act Ulcm ligli(ly wid fully coisidered tlicir siilnlli(tcd report beliwe teachitib adecision. The GAL'S recommendation I)laccd heaq weight on die breakdown in the relationship bctrivecn (he Petitioner aid (lie Rcspo» idcli(. ,See Ginadimi Ad Irtem's• Repon at !r7. The Court remains wico inimcd that this brcakdowil has impeded the Petitioner Irom caring for Respondent or otherwise inalmig decisions that are ill the Respotldent's best tnlcrests, As outlined above, the Pctiticlner is still able to talw the Respondent's desires and needs inloy consideration and has done her best to ineet these wants and needs.'F'lle cilire breakdomi arises from the decision For the Respondent to remain in long-(cnii care, which has only semed to her benclit by ail evideme pro%ided. The Court believes that, gwcn the linalicial situation ol* the Respondent, the Respondent's age, her past hcha%rior, quid her incapacity, dial a Hurd-Imly gttardi.ui is likely to make the nine decision to maintain Rcspotident's residency at the long-tcl7n care facility. Should this occur, evideiice suggests that Respornlent will have similal-
relationship isslies %%ith the third-party g ardiati.
Given this, arld For similar reasons as outlined above, tine Court rejected the recomniendation of the GAL.
13
3. The Agent breached her fiduciary duty by refusing to comply with the wishes of the Respondent that she be allowed to return to the Respondent's residence from assisted living with the condition that necessary home care be provided to the Respondent,
'file fiduclaq duty of :
ul agent to'an iucali.ici(ated principal is to act in within (lie reasonable
cXpectalions ofthe principal as kinc'lwn to the agent, othenvise, in the best interests of' tile principal. 20 Pa. Stat. and Corisol. Slat, Ann. 45601.3. MIlien dealing with .ul incapacitated person, the standard of re\iew of ail .amt's/gli.udiaii's actions is whether the action mas taken in (lie hest interest of the principal, Mid in light of insufficient evidence of such, wltedier dic action comported «zili the wishes of the iticapacilated. hi Re: A.B., 285 A.3d 936 (2022).
Here, it is clear that (lie Respondent has no desire to be in along-tenu care facility vld waists to returi home. 1-ioivucr, it is worth ilotint; ( hat this was never explicitly suited or laid Out in writing until after the Respondent was placed in it l'aciliq,and had become iticapacilaied. The Petitioner has clearly demonstrated dirout,-lt tesiiinoiw, that she and ber sister took info consideration the Rcspoildcnt's lvislt to reltim lionle, but believed that Pivcn her pre%ious resistance to ai -hoine cadre, the lack of adequate funding from Respondent's long-term care instinulce and leer general assets, .is %vell as leer need for regular care acid assistwice, that her best interests were better screed by being placed ilia facility where she could bet ttic c.u-c she needs Nvhilc hcillg tidly covered try tier lone;-tarns c.u-c insurance. .Sce ht T at d•1, 86. Furthermore, the Court recotmi es that OWN would be coosiderahle risks in renio►iilg tide Respondent from lie facility slre is cuircrrtly in. There is no
WAct cl fcility that she is in, should guarm)tee that Respondent would be able to rctuni to the hi L
lionic care not work out. See H. Tat 93. This could leave leer ill alesser I:acil6 ,where she will uol receive the satne quality of c.u•c titan she is cun-ently receiNing.
The Court sees no reason to discredit ( lie (estntion),of either er the Petitioner, nor her sister, wid
bas likewise lound ( flat (lie) ,hay+ acted witli the best-in(erests,of the Respondent in inind, given the
14
Respotulew's Iiisloi} ,of behavior <uid the conditions stimnituliilg the case. Furdiennore, the Petitioner has performed the duties as Respondent's agcill 4vell %%ithin Ilie gntidclines of Iicr fidticialy duty.
4. The Petitioner had aconflict of interest in that she had allowed her brother to move into the Respondent's home and she would have to remove her brother from the Respondent's home if she were allowed to return home.
The Court agrees that, tinder dilki-ew facts alld circunislau)ces, the Petitioner's shared mvnership ol• the Respondent's lionie could lead to disclualilicalion.
The determination of aconflict of ii)(cresi is properly mforincd 1)y the rclafiolisllil)
betivecn tilt: incapacitated person and the proposed gua rdiaui before the incapacity arose, by whedier tl)e proposed guardian stauids to I)cneht later froin leer non-tisc of funds for ( lie bcnehl oI the L{aid dnling the pardiauisl)ij), will 1)y the actions taken by file proposed guardiaui aller incapacity arose but before lira rdiansliip proccediii6ps commenced.
In icy: Est. ol'Rod8vi:s, No. 818 NVDA 2018, 2010 \VI. 177`1000 ( Pa. Super. 2019).
'llic Court careltillyt considered the facts surr•ourldirlg the Pctitioi)er's co-ownership of the
Respondent's propci-ty. I II delcriiililing wlictlier (Ills lillerest is disqualilyiiig, this Court looked to Ilse
totality of facts surrotuiding the case. The Inu)sfer of file interest, occuired several years bclorc citlier die Power ol'Attonicy was created or tine Respondent's incapacity strati delennined. 11.7: at 75. Petitioner has not, in ai)y way, ct)riclied herself at the Respondent's detnmcrit. In fact, according to credible testimony, the Respondent's home was only leased to Petitioner's brother in hopes to maintain the property in the Respondent's absci)cc. Irl. at 37, 7G-78. Ftirthennore, the proceeds oi' the lease are entirely put towards the benelit ol' the Respondct)l, Petitioner does not take in aily proceeds froin the rent despite having partial omicrship ol' the property. Id. at 78. Additionally, as opposed to aprivate tenant, Petitioner placed afa)uily nicn)ber in Ilse home on aillonth to inolldl
15
lease, «ilh the knowledge that (hey ilia)' need vacalc 1he propc►7y in order to facilitate floc reluni of the Respondent. h/. Finally, Petitioner's accounting shows growth ol'the Respondent's assets while
under her control. , Sec Petitioner's Accounling.
In analyzing these facts lhroul,•l► the cited su►alysis, the Cou rt first considers dial the Petitio ner
quid Respondent had avery close relationship prior to ( lie Respondent's incapacity. "1'ltcre is no
evidence to suMest that Petitioner cvcr sought to em ich herself at the Respondent's detri►nenl
before, eluting, or after Respondent was rendered incapacitated. Peuttoner stands to benefit as a beneficiary from mainl.uning or growing die Respondent's wssets, she also stands to benefit from
m ai nt ain ing the home dial she is aco-owner ol'. Flowcver, the PeUnoner's expl.uiatio iof her actions
slieds light on leer motivations. Petitioner outlined that the Respondent's linaticial situation would
not be able to support Respondent's return home «rich ( lie required level ol'care, and dial site believed Respondent %+,as better cued liar al the long-term care facility. Since the Respondent's
incapacity, die Petitioner lias helped grow ;uld maintain the Respondent's assets. She ltas not shoml any mallcas lice or sell'-cicaling, nor any attempts at self-dcaling or sell-enrichment at die detriment
to dic best interests cal" the Respondent.
'l7►c Court is cominced by these facts that my possible adverse interests the Petitioner may have do not rise to alevel which would require disqualification.
16
5. The Court arbitrarily ignored the report of an Expert that the principal could return home if
given proper support This %t;is not the issue belorc the Court (odecide. '1'lic Court gt<<c both cxpert rmpolis their olttc weight in regards to tltc Respondent's incapacity mul other facts relmant to the issue of' whether or not to lttmor the Responciciit's Power ol'Auonicy doctnnent or instead to appoint a tltirtl-truly gum—diutship service. It would ultimately be for the Respondent's guardim to detennine whether or not it was appropriate: for Respondent to return home.
S. The Court arbitrarily ignored the report of an Expert that the principal could return home if given proper support:
'111is «a_5 not the issue before the Court to decide. ]'lie Court gave both cxl)ci1 reports their clue weight in regards to the Respondcnt's incapacity and other Facts relev.uil to the issue of'
whedier or not to honor the Respondent's Power of Attonicy document or instead to appoint a Hurd-lmrty guardianship senrice. It. would ultimately be for the Respondent's guardian to detenniuc whether or not it wws appropriate for Respondent to return home.
CONCLUSION
For the loregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the issues nosed in Resl)ondents'
Concise Statement of Matters Complained ol'on Appeal .u•c without merit. The Register of Wills is directed to file the record ol'diese proceedings %%idi the Superior Court.
BY "1'1-11. COURT: