143 A.3d 795
Me.2016Background
- Harold Sanders, a 64‑year‑old with serious physical and mental impairments, arrived in Maine on October 15, 2013 and was admitted to Maine Medical Center’s psychiatric unit the next day.
- The Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for guardianship in Cumberland County Probate Court on November 6, 2013 and obtained a temporary guardianship; a full guardianship hearing occurred July 17, 2014.
- The Probate Court adjudicated Sanders incapacitated and, on September 23, 2014, appointed the Department as his permanent public guardian, finding no suitable private guardian available.
- Sanders appealed, arguing the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction under the Maine Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (18‑A M.R.S. § 5‑523 et seq.).
- The Department conceded Maine was not Sanders’s home state and that Maine was not a “significant‑connection” state but argued jurisdiction existed under § 5‑523(b)(3).
- The Law Court concluded the statute’s plain language requires Maine to be a significant‑connection state for (b)(3) to apply and therefore vacated the guardianship appointment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Probate Court had jurisdiction under 18‑A M.R.S. §5‑523 to appoint a non‑temporary guardian for Sanders | Sanders: Probate Court lacked jurisdiction because Maine was neither his home state nor a significant‑connection state | Dept: Although Maine is not home or significant‑connection state, jurisdiction exists under §5‑523(b)(3) because other states declined and Maine is the more appropriate forum | Court held jurisdiction lacking; §5‑523(b)(3) requires Maine be a significant‑connection state, so appointment vacated |
| Whether emergency/temporary jurisdiction or other statutory authority validated the extended guardianship | Sanders: No valid basis; permanent appointment improper | Dept: Temporary emergency authority existed earlier and could justify intervention | Court: Emergency jurisdiction (six months) does not authorize the permanent appointment; the appointment exceeded temporary statutory authority |
| Whether statutory text should be construed to conform to the Uniform Act or to Maine’s plain language | Sanders: Plain statutory text controls; no jurisdiction | Dept: Legislative history suggests tracking the Uniform Act; broader reading | Court: Applied plain language of Maine statute; will not rewrite statute to mirror Uniform Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Patrons‑Oxford Mut. Ins. Co., 411 A.2d 1017 (Me. 1980) (statutory plain‑meaning principle)
- Kimball v. Land Use Regulation Comm’n, 745 A.2d 387 (Me. 2000) (courts should not look beyond clear statutory text)
- In re Cyr, 873 A.2d 355 (Me. 2005) (jurisdictional questions may be raised at any time and reviewed de novo)