Justin W. McPhail v. Pamela McPhail, 218 So. 3d 290

Frances McPhail, age 86 with dementia, was a nursing-home resident; two conflicting durable powers of attorney existed (2007 appointing Pamela; 2015 appointing Justin/Anthony/Patty).
Justin McPhail and Anthony Page Portera petitioned the chancery court to be appointed guardians and sought relocation of Frances to a granddaughter’s home; Pamela opposed and asserted her existing authority.
The parties entered a temporary agreed visitation order; Justin later removed Frances from the nursing home without notice, prompting Pamela to obtain a TRO and legal/physical custody to return Frances to the facility.
At a bench trial the chancellor set aside the 2015 power of attorney, found Frances had diminished capacity, appointed Pamela guardian of person and estate, required annual accountings, and ordered removal of Pamela’s name from a joint checking account.
The final chancery order affirmed liberal on-site visitation subject to nursing-home rules, allowed one non-overnight outing per week, and did not permit overnight stays; appellants appealed, arguing errors in the final order and the guardian appointment.

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Pamela's Argument	Held
Whether the final order departed from the bench ruling	Final order omitted chancellor's allowance for overnight visits	Bench ruling was tentative and chancellor reserved right to amend	No error; bench rulings subject to modification and chancellor had reserved amendment
Whether limiting visitation/ prohibiting overnight stays was an abuse of discretion	Overnight visits should be permitted; nursing home/Medicaid limits only	Overnight visits disrupt Frances’s routine and require 24-hour care	No abuse of discretion; restriction supported by medical testimony about dementia care needs
Whether Pamela was an improper guardian given alleged fiduciary breaches	Pamela breached duties; Justin better suited as guardian	Pamela had long-term caregiving history and prior testamentary nominations; protections imposed	No abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supported Pamela’s appointment and court imposed safeguards
Whether Justin (or Page) demonstrated capacity to provide required 24-hour care	They urged capability to care and placement with family	Families’ ability to provide continuous care was contested; concerns about appellants’ finances/schedules	Chancellor reasonably found appellants lacked demonstrated ability to provide continuous care; appointment to Pamela affirmed

Tenn. Props. Inc. v. Gillentine, 66 So. 3d 695 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for chancery-court factual findings)
Corp. Mgmt. v. Greene Cty., 23 So. 3d 454 (Miss. 2009) (chancery review deferential to factual findings)
Fletcher v. Lyles, 999 So. 2d 1271 (Miss. 2009) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Hinson v. Hinson, 877 So. 2d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (bench rulings subject to modification by the chancellor)
Grey v. Grey, 638 So. 2d 488 (Miss. 1994) (bench rulings are not final and may be amended)
Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So. 3d 210 (Miss. 2014) (chancery courts’ wide discretion to protect wards’ best interests)
Union Chevrolet Co. v. Arrington, 132 So. 593 (Miss. 1932) (courts may take necessary steps to conserve and protect wards)
In re Guardianship of Estate of Lewis, 45 So. 3d 313 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (purpose of guardianship to protect those unable to protect themselves)
Bolivar v. Waltman, 194 So. 3d 889 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (visitation restrictions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Lofton v. Lofton, 176 So. 3d 1184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (deference to chancery court visitation determinations)