972 N.W.2d 492
S.D.2022Background
- Bruggeman (a long‑time acquaintance of Ramos) was diagnosed with vascular dementia that progressed to major neurocognitive disorder; VA and neuropsychological reports recommended higher level care.
- In 2012 Bruggeman executed a power of attorney naming Ramos as agent and a will leaving his estate to her; Ramos later lived at a house (Union Street) bought by Bruggeman and acted as his primary caregiver.
- In May 2018 Ramos added herself as supplemental owner on Bruggeman’s accounts and shortly thereafter withdrew about $328,000, using $296,500 to buy the Willow Creek property in her name.
- Black Hills Advocate was appointed Bruggeman’s guardian/conservator and filed a petition for a protection order alleging Ramos neglected and financially exploited Bruggeman; the circuit court entered a protection order, ordered return of $296,500, and awarded attorney fees.
- Ramos appealed, raising (1) the quashing of Bruggeman’s subpoena/competency to testify, (2) the vulnerable‑adult finding, (3) financial‑exploitation finding, (4) neglect finding, and (5) attorney‑fee award; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Black Hills Advocate) | Defendant's Argument (Ramos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Quash of subpoena / witness competency | Medical reports and prior guardianship proceedings show Bruggeman lacked capacity to understand, remember, narrate, or safely attend; quash justified. | Medical reports did not specifically address competency to testify; court should have held a competency hearing or personally examined him; quash was abuse of discretion. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in quashing subpoena based on unrebutted expert reports and prior guardianship findings; personal observation or live testimony not required here. |
| 2. Vulnerable‑adult status (SDCL 21‑65‑1(15)) | Bruggeman meets statutory definition due to age and severe neurocognitive impairment preventing self‑protection. | Statute vague; record shows he could at times understand and protect himself. | Affirmed: factual findings (age, severe neurocognitive impairment, need for 24/7 care) support vulnerable‑adult determination. |
| 3. Financial exploitation (SDCL 21‑65‑1(4)(d) & 22‑46‑1(5)) | Ramos, as person in position of trust/POA, wrongfully took/exercised control with intent to defraud by withdrawing funds and buying Willow Creek for her benefit. | Transactions were consistent with longstanding familial financial support and Bruggeman’s intent to benefit Ramos; no fraudulent intent. | Affirmed: trial court’s finding (viewing evidence deferentially) that Ramos withdrew funds with intent to defraud and financially exploited Bruggeman is not clearly erroneous. |
| 4. Neglect (SDCL 22‑46 series) | Evidence of inadequate care and refusal of recommended services supports neglect finding. | Keeping Bruggeman out of long‑term care complied with his expressed wishes; no harm shown. | Court’s neglect finding upheld in substance, but appellate decision notes affirmance of exploitation makes addressing neglect unnecessary for disposition. |
| 5. Trial & appellate attorney fees | Fees authorized (SDCL 21‑65‑15); affidavit supported reasonableness; remand unnecessary. | Requests remand for clearer findings; contests reasonableness of appellate fee request. | Affirmed trial fee award (court adequately incorporated counsel affidavit); appellate fee request denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Warren, 462 N.W.2d 195 (S.D. 1990) (sets competency standard for witnesses to receive, remember, narrate impressions and understand oath)
- State v. Lufkins, 381 N.W.2d 263 (S.D. 1986) (upholding exclusion of witness who lacked memory of events and other testimonial capacities)
- Kern v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 883 N.W.2d 511 (S.D. 2016) (party moving to quash subpoena bears burden to justify quash)
- State v. Morse, 753 N.W.2d 915 (S.D. 2008) (definition and proof of intent to defraud)
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 790 N.W.2d 52 (S.D. 2010) (exposition of testamentary capacity principles)