In re the Guardianship of Hellen Kinney Morris: Mary M. Kinney and Patrick Kinney v. Paul Kevin Kinney
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 224
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Helen Kinney Morris, age 89, diagnosed with mild–moderate dementia, lives at home with around‑the‑clock family assistance for personal care and property management.
- In 2004 Helen executed a durable power of attorney naming her children Kevin and Molly as attorneys‑in‑fact with broad authority over property and health‑care; the POA stated it survives incompetency.
- Family divisions arose after a 2013 dispute over remodeling; two factions of siblings became estranged and contested control of Helen’s affairs.
- In July 2014 Kevin filed a petition to appoint guardians for Helen; a guardian ad litem recommended against guardianship because the 2004 POA appeared to be working, but the court held a hearing.
- The trial court found Helen incapacitated (unable to adequately care for person and estate) and, to promote her welfare and attempt to repair family dynamics, appointed all six children as co‑guardians with allocated functional responsibilities.
- Molly and Patrick declined appointments and appealed, arguing Helen is not incapacitated and that a valid POA makes guardianship unnecessary; the Court of Appeals affirmed incapacity but remanded regarding the effect of the POA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helen is an "incapacitated person" under Ind. Code § 29‑3‑1‑7.5(2) | Molly/Patrick: Helen can make decisions with assistance; doctors and GAL said guardianship unnecessary | Kevin/other siblings: Dementia and need for nonstop assistance show inability to manage person and property | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; record supports finding of incapacity |
| Whether guardianship is necessary given a valid durable power of attorney (POA) | Molly/Patrick: The 2004 POA (Molly & Kevin as attorneys‑in‑fact) remains valid and bars guardian authority over matters covered by POA | Kevin/other siblings: Guardianship needed to protect Helen and repair family dynamics | Court: POA controls over guardian for property and health‑care unless court revokes/amends POA after hearing; trial court failed to evaluate necessity in light of POA—reversed and remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether appointed co‑guardians may exercise health‑care and financial powers conflicting with existing POA | Molly/Patrick: Guardians cannot exercise powers covered by valid POA; court must consider attorneys‑in‑fact first | Kevin/other siblings: Court allocated specific guardianship duties among siblings | Court: Because guardians are different from attorneys‑in‑fact, attorneys‑in‑fact remain in control per Ind. Code § 30‑5‑3‑4(b); trial court must reconsider appointments consistent with POA |
| Considerations for appointing guardian(s) | Molly/Patrick: Court should prioritize principal's wishes and existing POA designees | Kevin/other siblings: Court may consider best interests, welfare, and family dynamics | Court: On remand, trial court must consider factors in Ind. Code § 29‑3‑5‑5 (including the principal's wishes and persons acting under POA) when deciding necessity and choice of guardian(s) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of L.R., 908 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (attorney‑in‑fact remains in control when different from guardian unless court revokes POA after hearing)
- In re Guardianship of Shaffer, 711 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (a guardianship cannot be imposed over matters subject to an existing power of attorney)
- In re Guardianship of Atkins, 868 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate standard and deference to trial court in guardianship determinations)