2014 COA 181
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Sidney L. Runyon was a VA beneficiary whose VA payee changed from his mother (Gladys Runyon) to his sister (Elizabeth Knight) and later to Colorado State Bank and Trust (the Bank); Mother and Sister had previously been SSA/VA payees but were removed from VA payee status before the contested proceedings.
- The Bank filed for appointment under the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act (UVGA) and also nominated Jeanette Goodwin as guardian; a Denver Probate Court earlier rejected venue but had briefly appointed Goodwin as an emergency guardian (expired Aug 2012).
- Mother and Sister later petitioned in Arapahoe County to be co-guardians and co-conservators; the court appointed a visitor, who reported that Runyon opposed Mother and Sister serving; counsel was appointed for Runyon.
- At the December 2013 hearing Runyon (through his attorney) nominated the Bank as conservator/UVGA guardian and Goodwin as guardian; Runyon did not testify in court; the trial court appointed the Bank and Goodwin.
- Mother and Sister appealed, arguing (1) their status as designated SSA/VA payees gave them priority for appointment, and (2) the court improperly relied on Runyon’s on-the-record preferences given his incapacitation.
- The appellate court concluded Mother and Sister were not current court-appointed guardians/conservators and remanded because the trial court failed to make required findings about Runyon’s capacity to nominate and did not make findings of good cause for departing from statutory priority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior designation as SSA/VA payee creates statutory priority as a current guardian/conservator | Mother/Sister: being designated payees entitles them to first priority as current fiduciaries | Bank/Goodwin: federal payee status is not a court appointment and does not create statutory priority | Held: Payee status alone does not satisfy the statutory "current guardian/conservator" priority; no court appointment existed |
| Whether an incapacitated respondent can validly nominate a guardian/conservator at the appointment hearing | Mother/Sister: Runyon was incapacitated and could not validly nominate; nominations should be disregarded | Bank/Goodwin: Statute allows nomination, including oral nomination at hearing; respondent may have sufficient capacity to express preference | Held: Nomination can create priority if respondent had "sufficient capacity to express a preference," but the trial court failed to make findings on Runyon's capacity; remand required |
| Whether the UVGA appointment procedure precludes using general guardianship priority rules | Mother/Sister: UVGA should not displace general priority considerations | Bank/Goodwin: UVGA governs VA-benefit guardians but does not forbid consideration of general priority rules | Held: UVGA governs limited VA-benefit guardianships but does not preclude consideration of general guardianship/conservatorship priorities; court may apply those priorities |
| Whether trial court adequately justified appointing Bank and Goodwin despite concerns about capacity and statutory priority | Mother/Sister: court erred by relying on Runyon's counsel statement without capacity findings and without articulating good cause to depart from priority | Bank/Goodwin: appointments reflected Runyon's expressed wishes as relayed by counsel | Held: Trial court erred by not making explicit findings about Runyon's capacity to nominate or, alternatively, findings of good cause to appoint Bank/Goodwin; remand for evidentiary hearing; existing appointees remain in place pending further order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mitchell, 914 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court discretion in guardian appointment)
- In re Gollaher, 724 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) (deference to probate court in appointments)
- Kowalski v. Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (capacity to nominate and appellate review of guardianship choice)
- In re Estate of Roosa, 758 P.2d 1028 (Wyo. 1988) (UVGA guardianship limited to receipt of veterans' benefits)
- Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 196 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard and misapplication of law)