In re Guardianship of Hoffman , 2017 Ohio 8023 ( 2017 )

[Cite as In re Guardianship of Hoffman, 2017-Ohio-8023.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
IN RE: CASE NO. 9-17-06
THE GUARDIANSHIP OF:
OPINION
ELIZABETH H. HOFFMAN
Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
Probate Division
Trial Court No. 16-GDN-032
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 2, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Todd A. Workman for Appellant
M. Elizabeth Martindell for Appellee
Case No. 9-17-06
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Respondent-appellant Elizabeth H. Hoffman (“Hoffman”) appeals the
judgment of the Probate Division of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas
that granted an emergency guardianship over her and named M. Elizabeth
Martindell as guardian. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the lower
court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} In the summer of 2016, Hoffman fell inside her home and was unable
to get up. January 18 Hearing Tr. 12. She laid in her house for several days after
this fall until she was discovered. November 18 Hearing Tr. at 10. On July 28,
2016, she went to the intensive care unit at the hospital. After she received
treatment for her injuries, Hoffman was admitted to the Kindred Nursing Home
and Rehabilitation Community (“Kindred”) for recovery on August 9, 2016. Id.
On November 15, 2016, the attorney for Kindred submitted an application for the
appointment of an emergency guardian for the estate and person of Hoffman at the
Probate Division of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. Doc. 1. An
expert evaluation of Hoffman’s condition was affixed to this application. Docs. 4,
5. On November 16, 2016, the trial court found that a guardianship of the person
of Hoffman was appropriate and appointed M. Elizabeth Martindell (“Martindell”)
as emergency guardian. Doc. 5. The trial court then ordered a hearing on this
matter be held on November 18, 2016. Id.
-2-
Case No. 9-17-06
{¶3} At the hearing on November 18, 2016, Melissa Scott (“Scott”), the
director of nursing at the Kindred facility where Hoffman was recovering, testified
about Hoffman’s mental and physical condition. November 18 Hearing Tr. 3. In
her testimony, Scott stated that the staff at Kindred was concerned about
Hoffman’s safety if a guardian was not appointed. Id. Scott testified that
Hoffman did not have running water at her home for roughly a year as of October
2016, her utilities had been shut off, and she had become a hoarder, having no
clear pathways through her house. Id. at 3, 5. Scott explained that Kindred had
attempted to rectify the issues with the utility company by setting up an
arrangement with Hoffman’s bank, but Hoffman believed that her bank was
embezzling money from her account and refused to use online bill paying. Id. at
5. Scott also testified that Hoffman’s condition had improved since her admission
to Kindred. Id. at 7. She stated that Hoffman was not always cooperative,
refusing to comply with the nursing home staff and believing that the protein
shakes she was being served were “poison.” Id.
{¶4} Hoffman was also at this hearing. Id. at 6. While Scott was testifying,
Hoffman interrupted her and challenged her testimony. Id. During this outburst,
the trial judge informed Hoffman that her attorney was her advocate and would
speak for her during cross examination. Id. at 6-7. At this point, Hoffman
indicated that she was not aware that her attorney represented her, saying that she
believed the attorney next to her was the representative of her doctor. Id.
-3-
Case No. 9-17-06
Hoffman then testified, saying she did not need a guardian. Id. at 9. During her
testimony, she claimed that the nursing home was giving her a medication she was
allergic to, asserted that her bank was embezzling money from her, and refused to
say where she was going when she left Kindred because she was being “harassed”
by the nursing home staff. Id. at 11-12, 13, 16. After hearing Hoffman’s
testimony, the trial court extended the emergency guardianship for another thirty
days. Id. at 21.
{¶5} On December 15, 2016, the trial court extended the guardianship until
January 18, 2017 and set another hearing date on the guardianship. Docs. 26, 28.
At the hearing on January 18, 2017, Scott again testified about Hoffman’s mental
and physical condition. January 18 Hearing Tr. at 6. Scott described Hoffman as
a difficult patient who refused to take her medication at times, yelled at the
nursing home staff, and was often confused about her meal schedule. Id. at 7-8.
Scott said that Hoffman often called 9-1-1 and reported on the nursing home staff.
Id. at 10. However, on the morning of the hearing, Hoffman fell while getting off
the bus, and the bus driver said their transportation service would no longer be
able to pick up Hoffman because of her physical condition. Id. at 11. Scott
testified that the nursing home regimen appeared to have been helping Hoffman
and that she had concerns about Hoffman’s ability to care for herself if she was
released from Kindred. Id. at 6, 8. During Scott’s testimony, Hoffman interrupted
the examination and called Scott a liar. Id. at 7.
-4-
Case No. 9-17-06
{¶6} Hoffman then testified. Id. at 20. In her testimony, Hoffman refused
to give her date of birth for the record, would not tell the court about her plans if
the guardianship were terminated, and admitted that she had brain damage from an
accident. Id. at 20, 25, 29. At the conclusion of her testimony, Hoffman stated
that she “[did] not want the d*** Court to harass [her] anymore” and accused the
nursing home of “kidnapping” her. Id. at 29. The court then ordered a
guardianship, appointing Martindell as guardian. Doc. 53. In its judgment entry,
the trial court relied upon the evaluation of Dr. Parminder Singh in which
Hoffman was diagnosed as having a mental illness and the evaluation of Dr.
Timothy Spare in which Hoffman’s mental and physical condition was discussed
in detail. Id.
Assignment of Error
{¶7} Hoffman filed notice of appeal on March 7, 2017. Doc. 59. On
appeal, Hoffman raises one assignment of error, which reads as follows:
The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Appellant when it
granted petitioners’ motion for guardianship absent clear and
convincing evidence and such determination was against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
In her brief, Hoffman argues that the trial court erred by making a determination
against the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, appellant argues that
the information at the hearing did not address the present condition of Hoffman
-5-
Case No. 9-17-06
but addressed her past condition. On the basis of these arguments, Hoffman
requests that this Court reverse the trial court’s award of guardianship.
Legal Standard
{¶8} “In a guardianship hearing, the issue is whether the individual is
‘presently incompetent and in need of a guardian.’” Matter of Guardianship of
Sauber, 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-16-37 and 13-16-38, 2017-Ohio-1317, ¶ 14,
quoting In re Al Bani, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27348, 2014-Ohio-5783, ¶ 22,
quoting In re Guardianship of Thomas, 148 Ohio App. 3d 11, 20, 771 N.E.2d 882,
889 (10th Dist.2002). Under R.C. 2111.01(D)(1), an incompetent person is
Any person who is so mentally impaired, as a result of a mental
or physical illness or disability, as a result of intellectual
disability, or as a result of chronic substance abuse, that the
person is incapable of taking proper care of the person’s self or
property or fails to provide for the person’s family or other
persons for whom the person is charged by law to provide.
R.C. 2111.01(D)(1).
{¶9} Incompetency must be established by clear and convincing evidence
before a guardian may be appointed by the trial court. R.C. 2111.02(C)(3). Clear
and convincing evidence is “proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of
the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”
State v. Keith, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 13-17-01, 2017-Ohio-5488, ¶ 26, quoting
-6-
Case No. 9-17-06
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus. On review of a guardianship, an appellate court “will examine the record
to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy
the requisite degree of proof.” Sauber at ¶ 15, citing Cross.
{¶10} “The trial court is granted broad discretion in matters involving the
appointment of a guardian for one alleged to be incompetent.” In re Guardianship
of Miller, 187 Ohio App. 3d 445, 2010-Ohio-2159, 932 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 3, citing In
re Guardianship of Slone, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-04-13, 2004-Ohio-6041.
In determining whether a trial court’s decision to appoint a
guardian is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a court
of appeals must be guided by the presumption that the findings
of the trier of fact were correct. The rationale of giving
deference to the findings of the trial court rests with the
knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses
and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and
use these observations in weighing the credibility of the
proffered testimony. Therefore, a judgment supported by
competent, credible evidence, going to all the essential elements
of the case, will not be reversed as being against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
(Citations omitted.) Slone at ¶ 9, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of
Cleveland, 10 Ohio St. 3d 77, 79-80, 461 N.E.2d 1273, 1276-1278 (1984).
Legal Analysis
{¶11} In this case, the record contains ample evidence to support a finding
that Hoffman is incompetent to take care of herself and is in need of a guardian.
First, the trial court reviewed two medical evaluations. Doc. 53. The first
-7-
Case No. 9-17-06
evaluation diagnosed Hoffman with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder. Id.
The doctor stated that Hoffman was mentally ill and needed to take certain
medications to treat this condition. Id. This evaluation concluded that Hoffman
was impaired as to her comprehension and judgment. Id. A second evaluation by
a psychiatrist stated that Hoffman was suffering from obsessive compulsive
disorder and paranoia. Id. This report expressed concern that Hoffman’s living
conditions at home were a danger to her health and that she was unaware of her
physical condition or her health needs. Id. Both reports concluded that Hoffman
was in need of a guardianship as she was not capable of providing for her own
health and safety. Id.
{¶12} Second, the behavior of Hoffman at the hearings on November 18,
2016, and January 18, 2016, suggests the need for a guardian. At multiple
junctures, Hoffman interrupted Scott while she was testifying and exhibited a
confused, combative behavior. Hoffman was unsure as to who her attorney
represented, claimed the bank was embezzling funds, and accused the nursing
home and the court of being complicit in kidnapping her. When asked, Hoffman
could not demonstrate that she could care for herself, refusing to state where she
planned on staying if she was released from the guardianship. During her
testimony, Hoffman also admitted that she had brain damage, that she was in poor
physical condition at the time of her fall in the summer, and that her time in the
nursing home had been beneficial to her health.
-8-
Case No. 9-17-06
{¶13} Third, Scott’s testimony discussed Hoffman’s behavior, her medical
condition, and the care the nursing home was providing to Hoffman. Scott’s
testimony established that Hoffman was in need of the regimen that the nursing
home could provide. Scott explained that Hoffman did not have water at her
home, did not have utility service at her house, and was a hoarder who did not
have clear pathways through her house. She also described the incident that led to
Hoffman’s stay at the nursing home, saying that Hoffman had fallen, could not get
up, and was discovered several days later with serious injuries. At the nursing
home, Hoffman had fallen four or five times with injury and was no longer able to
use the bus service she relied upon for transportation as the result of a fall. Scott
described Hoffman’s combative behavior, which involved refusal to take
medication and insults directed at the staff. The regimen also appeared to be
helpful to Hoffman as her wounds had healed. Apparently, Hoffman was not able
to remember whether she had eaten her meals or taken her medication without the
help of the nursing home staff.
{¶14} We do not find evidence in the record that would suggest that the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering a guardianship for Hoffman. While
Hoffman asserts that the guardianship was awarded in response to her past
physical condition rather than her present physical condition, we find ample
evidence in the record that addresses her present physical and mental condition.
Scott testified as to Hoffman’s ongoing care at the nursing home and Hoffman’s
-9-
Case No. 9-17-06
recent behavior in response to the nursing home staff. Scott’s testimony even
included a discussion of a fall that Hoffman had the morning of the trial. Further,
the trial court was able to observe Hoffman’s present physical and mental
condition as she testified on her own behalf before the trial court. After reviewing
the record, we find that the trial court, in reaching its decision, relied upon some
competent credible evidence. Thus, we do not find that the trial court’s judgment
was rendered against the manifest weight of the evidence. For these reasons,
Hoffman’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶15} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Probate Division of the Marion County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur.
/hls
-10-