IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF BERRY, 2014 OK 56

Foster Calvin Berry and Daughtrey Nell Berry are incapacitated and under guardianship; Jan Harris Berry, their daughter, was appointed Special Guardian for their person and estate in 2011.
Nominated counsel Clifton Baker and Steven Wyers appeared for the Berryhills and claimed the Berrys selected them as guardians’ counsel; wards later sought to have Baker/Wyers represent them.
The trial court held hearings on the wards’ selection of independent counsel and ultimately rejected Baker/Wyers as the wards’ chosen counsel, instead keeping Riseling & Rhodes for the wards.
The Berryhills sought emergency relief and extraordinary relief during the appeal, including challenges to visitation orders and discovery subpoenas related to ward trusts.
The trial court found Baker and Wyers not independent and with a conflict of interest, and ordered removal of those attorneys; the court also restricted visitation and addressed subpoenas related to ward trusts.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction for the subpoenas issue and affirmed the conflict finding, while directing a hearing on the subpoena matter and preserving other issues for potential appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nominated counsel had independence and conflict of interest	Berryhills claimed independence; wards chose Baker/Wyers.	Ward’s choice conflicted with interests of wards; independence lacking.	Yes; conflict shown and independence lacking.
Whether the guardianship court properly denied the wards’ choice of counsel	wards had capacity to knowingly choose Baker/Wyers	Court found conflict and lack of independence; denial proper.	affirmed; court properly denied nomination.
Whether subpoenas to a ward’s trustee may be quashed or must be heard	Subpoenas are permissible to uncover guardianship financials	Trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear motion to quash	Remanded with hearing required on objections to discovery.
Whether discovery and reporting requirements authorized subpoenas to trustees of ward trusts	Discovery serves accurate accounting for guardianship	Procedural safeguards exist; must follow Discovery Code	Guardianship court has authority to issue subpoenas to trustees and hear objections to discovery.

Towne v. Hubbard, 977 P.2d 1084 (1999 OK) (interlocutory appeal from ward's choice of counsel permissible after independent-counsel finding)
Conterez v. O'Donnell, 58 P.3d 759 (2002 OK) (review of interlocutory orders in guardianship context; scope of review clarified)
State ex rel. Reirdon v. Marshall County Court, 81 P.2d 490 (1935 OK) (appealability of probate/guardianship orders for substantial rights)
Whig Syndicate, Inc. v. Keyes, 836 P.2d 1283 (1992 OK) (class-action rulings; certification issues do not merge with other interlocutory rulings on appeal)
Russell v. Chase Investment Services Corp., 212 P.3d 1178 (2009 OK) (guardianship-durability power-of-attorney interplay; discovery and reporting framework clarified)
In re Guardianship of Holly, 164 P.3d 137 (2007 OK) (principles for guardianship appointment and independent-counsel inquiry)