In the Matter of: Bush, G. Appeal of: Bush, M.
In the Matter of: Bush, G. Appeal of: Bush, M. No. 3207 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Following Fabian Bush’s 2005 death, custody and estate disputes arose between daughter Mary Bush and sons Michael, Joseph, and Justin; Mary allegedly isolated Mrs. Bush and obtained the family home for $10.
- In 2011 the court found Genevieve Bush incapacitated and appointed Mary and Michael as co-guardians of the person and Joseph guardian of the estate; subsequent appeals affirmed that appointment.
- After renewed familial conflict, Mary was removed as co-guardian in 2013 and replaced by Attorney Elizabeth Srinivasan; the court prohibited Michael and Mary from being present together at Mrs. Bush’s home without a constable.
- In February 2015 Mary petitioned to remove Michael and Joseph for perjury and contempt and sought removal of Michael as co-guardian; Attorney Srinivasan petitioned to withdraw as co-guardian.
- After a four-day hearing, the orphans’ court granted Srinivasan’s withdrawal, removed Michael as co-guardian of the person, appointed Guardian Services of Pennsylvania as sole guardian of the person, and denied removal of Joseph and contempt/perjury charges.
- Appellants (Michael and Joseph) appealed, arguing removal was an abuse of discretion and that the court erred in denying depositions of Srinivasan and Dr. Eliza Thornton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of Michael as co-guardian of the person was an abuse of discretion | Michael: He met legal standards for guardian; removal was motivated by sibling acrimony and Srinivasan’s withdrawal | Orphans’ court: Michael’s conduct, inability to cooperate, isolation of Mrs. Bush, and interference with care jeopardized Mrs. Bush’s best interests | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; independent non-family guardian required to protect Mrs. Bush’s best interests |
| Whether denial of request to take depositions (Srinivasan, Dr. Thornton) was error | Appellants: Depositions necessary to probe factual basis of witnesses’ testimony; denial impaired their case | Orphans’ court: Witnesses testified at trial without undue limitation; depositions would be cumulative and prolong litigation; local rules require court approval | Affirmed — denial within court’s discretion; no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of appellate review for orphans’ court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- In re Estate of Schultheis, 747 A.2d 918 (Pa. Super. 2000) (same, on deference to orphans’ court factfinding)
- Estate of Haertsch, 649 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appointment of guardian lies within orphans’ court discretion)
- In re Estate of Border, 68 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (removal of guardian proper where incapacitated person’s best interests are jeopardized)
- Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohensee, 270 A.2d 216 (Pa. 1970) (interpreting when interests of estate are jeopardized under removal statute)
- In re Hyman, 811 A.2d 605 (Pa. Super. 2002) (orphans’ court discretion to govern discovery practice)