In Re Guardianship of Stalker
953 N.E.2d 1094
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Stalker, a protected person, elected to appoint Pierce as his guardian in 2005; Health Department later deemed his home unfit for habitation and Pierce relocated him ten miles away.
- Pierce allegedly learned of Stalker’s condition and sought court appointment; the trial court appointed Pierce as guardian without bond in 2005.
- Health Department required significant repairs; CAP program deemed repairs beyond financial capacity; Pierce organized relocation and supervision.
- Pierce ordered demolition of Stalker’s home without court approval or notice, destroying personal belongings; later real estate was sold.
- Stalker objected and challenged final accounting; court approved Pierce’s amended accounting in 2010 and denied damages; this prompted post-judgment appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Pierce breach fiduciary duty to protect, preserve, and manage property? | Stalker argues Pierce demolished property without proper safeguards. | Pierce contends actions were within guardianship powers and in best interest. | Pierce breached duty to protect/preserve/manage property. |
| Did Pierce violate due process by demolishing home without notice or court approval? | Stalker asserts lack of notice violated due process. | Pierce argues guardian acting within authority; no due process violation. | Yes, due process was violated; damages awarded on remand. |
| Is law of the case doctrine applicable to bar Stalker’s pre-appeal claims? | Stalker contends doctrine does not apply due to no prior ruling on current issues. | Pierce asserts doctrine bars related pre-appeal claims. | Doctrine not applicable; merits proceed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice requires reasonably calculated notice)
- Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 891 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (law-of-the-case limits; discretionary tool)
- Wells v. Guardianship of Wells, 731 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (guardian duties to protect ward’s property)
- Slanter v. Favorite, 107 Ind. 291, 4 N.E. 880 (1886) (fiduciary prudence standard for guardians)
- Gillispie v. Darroch, 57 Ind.App. 482, 107 N.E. 475 (1915) (due process in guardianship context)
- Euler v. Euler, 55 Ind.App. 547, 102 N.E. 856 (1913) (guardian as officer of the court)