In re the Guardianship of Smith
54 V.I. 517
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2010Background
- Edney appeals from the Superior Court orders prohibiting contact with Lillian and striking Edney’s appearance for Lillian, plus costs awarded for a motion to vacate guardianship orders.
- Superior Court had appointed Alston guardian for Lillian after a July 18, 2008 guardianship petition alleging incompetence due to dementia, with an August 13, 2008 hearing.
- The August 13, 2008 hearing proceeded with no counsel for Lillian and resulted in a finding of incompetence and appointment of Alston as guardian, memorialized September 11, 2008.
- Relatives and Alston moved to vacate/strike Edney’s appearance; Edney filed a February 24, 2009 notice of appearance and a motion to vacate the September 11, 2008 order.
- The October 22, 2009 orders denied the motion to vacate, struck Edney’s appearance, and ordered Edney to pay Alston’s costs; Edney appealed in November 2009.
- This Court vacates the challenged orders, holding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the August 13, 2008 and September 11, 2008 orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to declare incompetence and appoint a guardian. | Edney argues due process and lack of notice/counsel violated Lillian’s rights. | Alston contends the court had jurisdiction under guardianship statutes. | Yes; the court lacked jurisdiction due to noncompliance with statutory procedures. |
| Whether failure to provide ten days’ notice and a full hearing voids the orders. | Edney asserts notice and full hearing requirements were not met, rendering orders void. | Alston asserts procedural compliance or waiver through appearance. | Yes; notice and a full hearing were jurisdictional and not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Najawicz, 52 V.I. 311 (V.I. 2009) (courts may void guardianship orders for lack of jurisdiction when statutory procedures are not followed)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timeliness and proper procedure are jurisdictional requirements)
- In re Swanson, 115 Wn.2d 21, 804 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1990) (statutory incompetency procedures must be followed strictly)
- In re Corless, 440 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio App. 1981) (personal service and procedural safeguards are jurisdictional)
- Blevins v. Cook, 66 N.M. 381, 348 P.2d 742 (N.M. 1960) (guardianship orders void for failure to satisfy procedural safeguards)