In the Matter of Frank Pedro.
24-P-0324
Mass. App. Ct.May 1, 2025Background
- Michaelyn Profio, the sister-in-law of Frank Pedro, received Pedro's home and transferred his savings into her control during a period when his capacity was questioned.
- Bristol Elder Services (BES) petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship of Pedro, alleging undue influence and incapacity at the time of the transfers.
- A default judgment in an equity complaint nullified the transfers and ordered funds returned to Pedro; later, the parties entered into a stipulation where Profio agreed to withdraw from related cases and waive claims.
- Disputes over the conservatorship continued, but ultimately a permanent conservator was appointed by agreement of the parties, including Profio.
- The conservator later sought a license to sell Pedro's real estate; Profio objected, but the probate court struck her objection for lack of standing (not an "interested person").
- Profio appealed, contesting the determination that she lacked standing to object to the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Profio's Argument | Conservator's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing as Interested Person | Profio is an interested person due to her interest in Pedro's well-being | Profio does not meet statutory definition of interested person | Court found Profio was not an interested person and thus lacked standing to object |
| Effect of Prior Stipulation | Stipulation waiving standing is invalid due to breakdown/agreement failure | Profio waived claims/standing via stipulation | Even without the stipulation, Profio’s lack of standing or merit led to affirming the lower court |
| Merits of Objection to Sale | Conservator did not justify need to sell or consider alternatives | Sale is necessary for Pedro’s benefit; objection lacks factual support | Objection lacked sufficient detail; judge found no grounds or facts to support blocking the sale |
| Harmless Error if Any | Even if there was error in standing, merits justify reversal | Judgment would be same regardless | Any error in standing was harmless because objection would still be denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of B.V.G., 474 Mass. 315 (mixed questions of fact/law in standing reviewed de novo)
- Hornibrook v. Richard, 488 Mass. 74 (defines role and authority of a conservator in managing a protected person's estate)
- Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (rule 23.0 summary decisions as persuasive, not binding authority)