In the Est. of: Winstanley, E.
13 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Mother Elizabeth W. Winstanley, elderly resident of Masonic Village, was adjudicated a totally incapacitated person by the Lancaster County Orphans’ Court on July 23, 2014; a professional guardian (RES Consulting / Robert Stump) was appointed.
- Multiple neuropsychological and geriatric evaluations produced mixed opinions: Johns Hopkins (Dr. Brandt) and treating physician (Dr. Mast) supported incapacity; Drs. Royer and Eslinger offered more favorable or equivocal views; the court appointed an independent evaluator (Dr. Howse) who concluded total incapacity.
- Family conflict was heavy: two children (David and Elizabeth A.) contested the guardianship and sought removal of the guardian, attempted to arrange their own assessments and relocation to Maryland; the third child (Richard) supported a third‑party guardian.
- The court found substantial evidence of short‑term memory and executive‑function deficits that risked susceptibility to undue influence and impaired estate management and consistent self‑care decisionmaking.
- On December 11, 2015 the court (after review hearings and testimony, including Dr. Howse’s two evaluations) reaffirmed that Mrs. Winstanley was totally incapacitated and replaced RES Consulting with Patricia Maisano of IKOR as plenary guardian of person and estate; appellants (David and Elizabeth A.) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports finding total incapacity | Appellants argued the court lacked clear and convincing evidence and experts showed capacity | Court relied on independent evaluator Dr. Howse, treating physician, and staff observations showing memory/executive deficits | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of total incapacity remains |
| Whether court failed to consider less‑restrictive alternatives (limited guardianship) | Appellants urged limited guardianship and respecting Mrs. Winstanley’s preferences | Court weighed alternatives but found executive dysfunction and risk warranted plenary guardianship | Court held less‑restrictive alternatives insufficient given risk and deficits |
| Whether court erred in appointing replacement guardian without consulting incapacitated person/children | Appellants said court did not seek input and sua sponte replaced guardian | Court noted petitions requesting removal and discussed nominees; Richard supported third‑party guardian; court exercised discretion to choose neutral, licensed guardian | Court held appointment appropriate, not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court should have transferred Mrs. Winstanley to Maryland per her wish | Appellants argued immediate transfer was required | Court recognized expressed wish but placed duty to decide transfer in guardian under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521 and chose a guardian licensed in both states to facilitate transfer if appropriate | Court held transfer is guardian’s responsibility; no error in not ordering immediate move |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court factual findings)
- In re Estate of Schultheis, 747 A.2d 918 (Pa. Super. 2000) (weight accorded to Orphans’ Court credibility findings)
- In re Estate of Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2005) (burden of proof on guardian to justify continuation of guardianship on review)
- In re Coulter's Estate, 178 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1962) (trial court discretion in selection of guardian)
- In re Estate of Haertsch, 649 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appellate deference to appointing court’s guardian selection)