In the Matter of: McGusty, E.
In the Matter of: McGusty, E. No. 2699 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Elizabeth N. McGusty, age 83, was living in an assisted‑living facility and became the subject of a guardianship petition filed by her son James C. McGusty, Jr.; his brother Edwin consented to James’ appointment and later sought active involvement.
- After an initial hearing (March 22, 2016) the court appointed James temporary guardian of person and estate and allowed Elizabeth time for an independent evaluation she requested; a review hearing occurred July 20, 2016.
- Two independent evaluators (Dr. Kenneth Carroll and Dr. Bruce Mapes) assessed capacity; both concluded Elizabeth was incapacitated and needed plenary guardians for person and estate.
- At the July 20 hearing the court appointed both sons (James and Edwin) as plenary co‑guardians of Elizabeth’s person and James as sole plenary guardian of her estate.
- Elizabeth appealed, arguing the court failed to properly credit her testimony (including distrust of her sons and refusal to grant them a durable power of attorney), failed to account for her sons’ pecuniary interest, and that hearing‑aid issues impaired her participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to credit Elizabeth’s testimony opposing her sons as guardians | Elizabeth: court ignored her testimony that she distrusted her sons and objected to their appointment | Court: it considered her testimony, appointed counsel, allowed independent evaluation, and heard her at both hearings | Court held it did consider her testimony and gave it appropriate weight; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sons’ pecuniary interest tainted the medical evaluations and the court’s decision | Elizabeth: sons had a financial motive that influenced doctors and the court | Court: two qualified evaluators independently concluded incapacity; one evaluator had no contact with sons | Court held there was competent, independent medical evidence; pecuniary interest did not invalidate findings |
| Whether failure to have a durable power of attorney for a nominee required different treatment | Elizabeth: absence of a prior durable POA shows distrust should weigh against appointment | Court: statute gives preference to a nominee if appropriate and especially if named in a durable POA, but Elizabeth had named no agent | Court held absence of a durable POA did not require a different result; no error in appointment |
| Whether Elizabeth was prejudiced by inadequate hearing assistance during proceedings | Elizabeth: hearing aids/headphones issues prevented active participation | Court: the record shows the court offered and provided assistance, repeated answers when requested, and she testified effectively | Court held no prejudice; participation was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate review of Orphans’ Court factual findings is deferential; reversal only for abuse of discretion or lack of evidentiary support)
- In re Estate of Schultheis, 747 A.2d 918 (Pa. Super. 2000) (same principle regarding weight of witness credibility and trial court observations)
- Estate of Haertsch, 649 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appointment of a guardian rests within trial court’s discretion)
- In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 2001) (defines abuse of discretion standard: unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or motivated by bias)
- In re Sylvester, 598 A.2d 76 (Pa. Super. 1991) (a nominee named in a durable power of attorney should receive particular consideration when appointing a guardian)