In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Denise Louise Evans, Ward. Denise Louise Evans, Ward-Appellant.
16-2192
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Denise Evans, 56, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, experienced frequent falls, injuries, and required extensive care; IDHS intervened after concerns about her safety and financial management.
- IDHS obtained an emergency protective order under Iowa Code § 235B.19 in July 2016 authorizing hospitalization, record access, placement decisions, and limited entry to her home; multiple subsequent emergency orders followed.
- In October 2016 IDHS filed a petition under Iowa Code chapter 633 seeking involuntary appointment of guardian and conservator; after an evidentiary hearing the district court appointed Evans’s sister Debra Williams as temporary guardian and conservator.
- Evans appealed, challenging (1) the July emergency 235B order, (2) sufficiency of evidence for guardianship/conservatorship, and (3) the court’s consideration of limited versus full appointment.
- The appeal addresses jurisdiction (whether the temporary appointment order was final), evidentiary sufficiency under the clear-and-convincing standard, and statutory requirement to consider limited guardianship/conservatorship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / finality of temporary appointment order | Evans impliedly argued review unwarranted or challenged proceedings | State argued order was interlocutory and appeal untimely | Order was final (appointment of temporary guardian/conservator was a final adjudication); appellate jurisdiction proper |
| Timeliness/challenge to §235B emergency orders | Evans argued emergency orders were inappropriate | State argued challenge untimely | Challenge to July §235B order was untimely; later cancellation of orders rendered claim moot and court declined discretionary review |
| Sufficiency of evidence for guardianship and conservatorship | Evans contended evidence insufficient to show incapacity | State presented testimony showing inability to manage finances, heed medical advice, and need for 24‑hour care | Substantial evidence supported involuntary appointment under chapter 633; appointment affirmed |
| Consideration of limited guardianship/conservatorship | Evans argued court failed to consider limited appointment | State argued court considered and rejected limited measures as inadequate | Court explicitly considered and reasonably rejected limited guardianship/conservatorship; substantial evidence supports full appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- Swets Motor Sales, Inc. v. Pruisner, 236 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1975) (finality determined by scope/intent of order)
- Crowe v. De Soto Consol. Sch. Dist., 66 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 1954) (final judgment definition)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Wemark, 525 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (standard: affirm if supported by substantial evidence)
- Neidermyer v. Neidermyer, 22 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 1946) (presumption of mental soundness in guardianship proceedings)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 250 N.W. 897 (Iowa 1933) (memory loss alone insufficient to establish incapacity)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Teeter, 537 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (unwise spending alone insufficient for conservatorship)
- Milks v. Iowa Oto-Head & Neck Specialists, P.C., 519 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1994) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)