60 A.3d 786
Me.2013Background
- In March 2012, the Department petitioned for Helen F. to be adjudicated incapacitated and for appointment as guardian and conservator.
- A hearing occurred May 10, 2012; the court’s order on May 11, 2012 appointed the Department as Helen’s full public guardian and conservator.
- Helen appealed and submitted a statement of the evidence under M.R. App. P. 5(d); the Department objected as incomplete and proposed additional facts.
- The Probate Court approved both statements but stated it could not recall the case details, undermining the Rule 5(d) record.
- Because the hearing was unrecorded and the Rule 5(d) record was not validly approved, the appellate record is deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rule 5(d) record when hearing unrecorded | Helen argues the 5(d) record was not properly approved and is inadequate. | Department contends the 5(d) record, as approved, should be treated as the record on appeal. | Record invalid; no acceptable Rule 5(d) record on appeal. |
| Effect of missing record on appellate review | Without a proper record, Helen lacks meaningful appellate review. | Absence of record should not bar review where error is evident; the court should proceed. | Court must vacate and remand due to absence of acceptable record. |
| Appropriate remedy for incapacity adjudication when record is missing | De novo adjudication is unnecessary if the record supports findings. | De novo adjudication is unnecessary if record could support the trial court’s findings. | Vacate judgment and remand for de novo adjudication consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Howes, 471 A.2d 689 (Me. 1984) (guardianship implicates fundamental liberty interests)
- In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947 (Me. 1987) (protects individual liberty in guardianship context)
- Union Pacific Ry. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) (fundamental rights to personal autonomy)
- Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898 (Me. 1995) (statutory scheme promoting independence of incapacitated persons)
- State v. Dickinson, 662 A.2d 202 (Me. 1995) (need for remand when record lost or unavailable)
- Cates v. Donahue, 2007 ME 38 (Me. 2007) (trial court should review and modify statements of evidence for accuracy)
- Milliken, 2010 ME 1 (Me. 2010) (exception to general rule when transcripts unavailable through no fault of appellant)
- Greaton v. Greaton, 2012 ME 17 (Me. 2012) (record adequacy framework on appeal)
- Town of Porter v. Blevens, 2009 ME 48 (Me. 2009) (adequacy of record on appeal and de novo considerations)
- Clark v. Heald, 2009 ME 111 (Me. 2009) (record and review standards in Maine appeals)
- Edwards v. Campbell, 2008 ME 173 (Me. 2008) (record development for appellate review)