2019 ME 23
Me.2019Background
- Patricia S., an incapacitated adult, required a guardian; DHHS initially filed a petition and a temporary guardian was appointed; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was also appointed.
- Michael and Peter Zani (adult sons, residents of California) filed a cross-petition seeking appointment as co-guardians; both have limited recent contact with their mother.
- The Zanis had hired Karin Beaster and Nancy Carter as paid caregivers; Beaster and Carter had frequent, recent contact with Patricia and the mother preferred them as guardians.
- At the contested full-day hearing the GAL, mother, Zanis, Beaster, and Carter testified; Beaster and Carter said they were willing to serve but had not filed petitions, guardianship plans, or pretrial acceptances before the hearing.
- After the hearing the court directed Beaster and Carter to file acceptances and a guardianship plan; the court then appointed them co-guardians. The Zanis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may appoint a person as guardian who did not file a petition, plan, or required pretrial reports | Zani: Court erred because Beaster and Carter did not comply with §5-303 filing requirements before the hearing | DHHS / court: §5-311(a) allows appointment of “any competent person,” so pre-hearing filing by the appointee is not strictly required | Court vacated judgment: prospective guardian must comply with statutory filing requirements so parties and court have pretrial information and opportunity to respond; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether adult children have statutory priority to appointment under §5-311(b) | Zani: As adult children they are statutorily prioritized for appointment | DHHS: Priority is permissive and subordinate to best-interest determination | Court: Priority exists but is subject to court’s determination of the incapacitated person’s best interests; no automatic error in appointing non-priority person if appointment is in best interest |
| Whether appointment of Beaster and Carter was in the mother’s best interest | Zani: Appointment of sons would better meet statutory priorities and interests | DHHS / mother: Beaster and Carter are trusted, experienced, and preferred by the mother | Court: Did not decide finally on record because remand required; declined to resolve sufficiency of current record on best-interest ground pending further proceedings |
| Whether post-hearing submission of a guardianship plan satisfies the pretrial notice rule | Zani: Post-hearing plan denied meaningful opportunity to respond and was procedurally deficient | DHHS / court below: Court can accept post-trial filings and consider them | Court: Post-trial filing of required plan was improper—statutory scheme requires submission before hearing; post-hoc filing deprived Zanis of meaningful opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. E. Me. Med. Ctr., 193 A.3d 157 (Me. 2018) (appointment of guardian affects fundamental liberties and requires careful procedure)
- Guardianship of Thayer, 136 A.3d 349 (Me. 2016) (statutory construction reviewed de novo; interpret statute in context)
- Guardianship of Hughes, 715 A.2d 919 (Me. 1998) (procedural protections in guardianship proceedings explained)
- Guardianship of Helen F., 60 A.3d 786 (Me. 2013) (recognizing the protectable liberty interests at stake in guardianship)
- Guardianship of Collier, 653 A.2d 898 (Me. 1995) (full guardianship should follow careful consideration of ward’s needs)
- Clark v. Int’l Paper Co., 638 A.2d 65 (Me. 1994) (appellate consideration of fully briefed issues in interest of judicial economy)