In the Matter of the Guardianship of A.P., Adult, Louisa Jurich v. Louis Picicco (mem. dec.)
45A05-1602-GU-300
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- A.P., born 1926, lives with daughter Hubbell; Jurich, another daughter, petitions for guardianship appointment in 2010.
- Trial court appoints Louis Picicco as guardian over A.P.’s estate with limited powers over her person after finding she is incapable of handling finances.
- Initial guardianship order requires asset inventory, periodic accounting, and conservative structure for asset use; guardian may make gifts only with court approval and in A.P.’s interest.
- Picicco files inventories and budgets; a 2011 budget is approved, later vacated, and new objections arise from Jurich about receipts and expenditures.
- Jurich objects to Picicco’s first/current and amended accounts, alleging missing Social Security amounts, excessive disbursements, lack of receipts, and mismanagement; Picicco provides receipts to counsel.
- Trial court ultimately accepts Picicco’s amended account and denies Jurich’s petition to remove the guardian as an interlocutory order, with later certification for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended account was properly approved | Jurich argues insufficient receipts and that expenditures were not shown in A.P.’s best interest. | Picicco contends receipts were available, the account was verified, and court could accept other proof per statute. | No abuse; amended account approved. |
| Whether denying removal without a hearing was proper | Jurich contends a hearing was required to remove the guardian. | Picicco asserts hearing not required when guardian not removed; objections already considered. | Harmless error; denial sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (interlocutory guardianship appeals contemplated; supervision ongoing)
- Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 696 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. 1998) (Final judgments; Rule 54(B) considerations)
- In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard in guardianship matters)
- Wells v. Guardianship of Wells, 731 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (guardian fiduciary duties and preservation of ward’s property)
- Rittenour v. Hess (In re Guardianship of Boyer), 174 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 1931) (guardian as officer of the court under supervision)
- Simon v. Simon, 957 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (motions panel reconsideration authority; FIERY appeal context)