In Re: M.L., Appeal of: M.L. ( 2023 )

J-S36018-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: M.L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.L. : No. 536 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 27-2019 O.C.
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: March 2, 2023
Appellant, M.L., appeals from the order entered in the Jefferson County
Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, denying his motion for
reconsideration of the court’s prior order deeming Appellant an incapacitated
person under the Incapacitated Persons Statute1 and appointing Appellee,
Distinctive Human Services, Inc. (“DHS”), as the permanent plenary guardian
of his person and estate. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
After Appellant was charged with several criminal matters in Jefferson County,
Appellant was evaluated for competency and deemed incompetent to stand
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5501-5555.
J-S36018-22
trial. Appellant was subsequently deemed incapacitated by the Orphans’
Court and DHS was appointed as guardian of Appellant’s person and estate.
This Court affirmed the adjudication of incapacity on June 8, 2020. See In
re: Lellock, 237 A.3d 1039 (Pa.Super. June 8, 2020) (unpublished
memorandum). On August 12, 2021, DHS filed a petition for public sale of
Appellant’s real and personal property. Appellant filed a motion for
continuance on September 2, 2021, requesting that the court allow him time
to undergo an independent psychological evaluation prior to the hearing
regarding his assets. The Orphans’ Court granted Appellant’s motion for
continuance the next day.
On April 20, 2022, Appellant filed a motion titled “Motion for
Reconsideration,” which asked the court to vacate its prior decree of incapacity
based on the psychological evaluation of Appellant by David LaPorte, Ph.D.
Appellant attached Dr. LaPorte’s report to his motion. On April 22, 2022, the
court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, noting that the LaPorte
report “confirms the correct decision was made regarding incapacitation due
to the delusions as well as criminal actions taken by the incapacitated person
when he was on his own.” (Orphans’ Court Order, filed 4/22/22). Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal on May 5, 2022. The next day, the court ordered
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant complied on May 31, 2022.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
-2-
J-S36018-22
Whether the [Orphans’ C]ourt erred in denying Appellant’s
motion for reconsideration without holding an evidentiary
hearing.
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
On appeal, Appellant asserts that his motion for reconsideration was in
essence a request for a review hearing pursuant to Rule 14.9(a) of the
Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules. Appellant argues that although
“Appellant’s filing does not comport with some of the requirements of Rule
14.9(b), … the substance of the Rule was met.” (Id. at 8). Appellant contends
that once he raised claims of competency, the court was required to either
make a determination of frivolity based on sound evidence or logic or hold a
review hearing. Appellant insists that in denying his motion for
reconsideration, the court neither determined that his motion was frivolous
nor granted him a review hearing, depriving him of the opportunity to flush
out the details of Dr. LaPorte’s findings regarding the level of guidance and
oversight Appellant required. Appellant concludes the court erred in denying
his motion for reconsideration without an evidentiary hearing, and this Court
should remand with directions that such a hearing be promptly scheduled. We
disagree.
Our Supreme Court has applied the following standard of review to
incapacity determinations:
[T]he Court is bound by the trial judge’s findings of fact
unless those findings are not based on competent evidence.
Conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate
court[,] whose duty it is to determine whether there was a
-3-
J-S36018-22
proper application of law to fact by the lower court.
In re Peery, 556 Pa. 125, 129, 727 A.2d 539, 540 (1999) (internal citations
omitted).
An incapacitated person is defined by statute as “an adult whose ability
to receive and evaluate information effectively and communicate decisions in
any way is impaired to such a significant extent that he is partially or totally
unable to manage his financial resources or to meet essential requirements
for his physical health and safety.” 20 P.C.S.A. § 5501. The court may appoint
a plenary guardian of an individual’s person or estate upon finding that the
individual is totally incapacitated and in need of plenary guardianship services.
See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5512(1)(c), (e). The court’s incapacity and guardianship
determination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See 20
Pa.C.S. § 5511.
Following a determination of incapacity and the appointment of a
guardian, the court may schedule a review hearing under the following
conditions:
§ 5512.2. Review hearing
(a) Time of hearing.--The court may set a date for a
review hearing in its order establishing the guardianship or
hold a review hearing at any time it shall direct. The court
shall conduct a review hearing promptly if the incapacitated
person, guardian or any interested party petitions the court
for a hearing for reason of a significant change in the
person’s capacity, a change in the need for guardianship
services or the guardian’s failure to perform his duties in
accordance with the law or to act in the best interest of the
incapacitated person. The court may dismiss a petition for
-4-
J-S36018-22
review hearing if it determines that the petition is frivolous.
20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5512.2(a).
Additionally, Rule 14.9 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules
provides:
Rule 14.9. Review Hearing
(a) Initiation. A review hearing may be requested by
petition or ordered by the court.
(b) Petition. A petition for a review hearing shall set forth:
(1) the name, age, address, and mailing address, if
different, of the petitioner and the petitioner’s
relationship to the incapacitated person;
(2) the date of the adjudication of incapacity;
(3) the names and addresses of all guardians;
(4) if the incapacitated person has been a patient in a
mental health facility, the name of such facility, the date
of admission, and the date of discharge;
(5) the present address of the incapacitated person, and
the name of the person with whom the incapacitated
person is living;
(6) the names and addresses of the presumptive
intestate heirs of the incapacitated person and whether
they are sui juris or non sui juris; and
(7) an averment that:
(i) there has been significant change in the
incapacitated person’s capacity and the nature of that
change;
(ii) there has been a change in the need for
guardianship services and the nature of that change;
or
-5-
J-S36018-22
(iii) the guardian has failed to perform duties in
accordance with the law or act in the best interest of
the incapacitated person, and details as to the duties
that the guardian has failed to perform or has
performed but are allegedly not in the best interests
of the incapacitated person.
(c) Service. The petition shall be served in accordance with
Rule 4.3 upon the incapacitated person and those entitled
to notice pursuant to Rule 14.2(f)(2).
(d) Hearing. The review hearing shall be conducted
promptly after the filing of the petition with notice of the
hearing served upon those served with the petition pursuant
to paragraph (c).
Pa.O.C. Rule 14.9. “[I]f an allegation of competency is made, the orphans’
court must immediately proceed to either make a determination of frivolity
based on sound evidence or logic or hold a review hearing.” In re Est. of
Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249, 1255 (Pa.Super. 2005).
Instantly, Appellant concedes that his motion for reconsideration does
not comport with the requirements of Rule 14.9 to petition for a review
hearing, but he maintains that the essential components were present.
Significantly, however, we note that Appellant did not actually request a
hearing in his motion for reconsideration. Rather, Appellant’s motion
requested the court to reconsider its prior adjudication of incapacity based on
the psychological evaluation report that was attached to the motion. Per
Appellant’s request, the court carefully reviewed Dr. LaPorte’s report and
determined that Appellant’s condition had not changed such that a guardian
was no longer required.
-6-
J-S36018-22
Even if Appellant had properly petitioned the court for a review hearing,
we find no error in the court’s decision to deny the request without a hearing.
Appellant relies on Rosengarten for the proposition that the court erred by
failing to schedule a prompt hearing or make a reasoned determination of
frivolity. In Rosengarten, Mrs. Rosengarten had been deemed incapacitated
because she was suffering from bipolar disorder and delusions for which she
had stopped taking medication. After some time, Mrs. Rosengarten’s guardian
sought court approval to sell Mrs. Rosengarten’s property. Mrs. Rosengarten
objected, alleging that there was significant improvement in her mental
condition and requested a review hearing on the question of continued
incapacity. Without conducting the requested review hearing, the Orphans’
Court proceeded to conduct a hearing on the disposition of Mrs. Rosengarten’s
assets.
Under those circumstances, this Court found that the Orphans’ Court
violated Section 5512.2(a) by failing to either schedule a prompt review
hearing or make a determination of frivolity, when Mrs. Rosengarten alleged
that she was competent. This Court further noted that a facial determination
of frivolity was precluded based on the circumstances of Mrs. Rosengarten’s
incapacity. Specifically, Mrs. Rosengarten’s adjudication of incapacity was
based on mental disorders for which she was not taking medication at the
time. As such, there was a higher probability that Mrs. Rosengarten’s mental
condition could have improved with a proper medication regimen and the
-7-
J-S36018-22
Orphans’ Court was required to evaluate her claim.
Here, there are key distinctions in the instant matter from
Rosengarten. The Orphans’ Court did not disregard Appellant’s objection to
the sale of his property but rather granted a continuance to allow Appellant
time to undergo an independent psychological examination. Further, the court
did not dismiss Appellant’s allegation of competence without inquiry into the
claim. The court essentially made a determination of frivolity after carefully
reviewing the results of the psychological exam. Although the court does not
specifically use the word “frivolous” in its denial of Appellant’s motion, it is
clear from the court’s order and the record that the court undertook the
requisite analysis. Appellant’s initial adjudication of incapacity was based on
the testimony of multiple psychologists who opined that Appellant suffered
from delusional disorder with a bleak prognosis for recovery. Dr. LaPorte’s
report, which was attached to Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, did not
demonstrate that Appellant’s condition had significantly improved such that a
guardian was no longer necessary.
Dr. Laporte opined that Appellant continued to suffer from delusional
disorder, particularly noting that delusional disorder is often chronic and
lifelong. Dr. Laporte observed that Appellant continued to harbor consistent
and detailed delusional thoughts, including being the target of government
schemes, special ability to communicate with others, and special skills and
abilities that resulted from involvement with the CIA. Regarding
-8-
J-S36018-22
incapacitation, Dr. Laporte opined:
The presence of delusional disorder can and likely will
greatly impair the ability to evaluate information effectively
particularly in regard to information related to the delusional
content. The delusional content will also likely impair the
ability to manage finances, at least partially; while the
ability to maintain daily finances, such as paying bills and
balancing a checkbook, may remain intact, the ability to
accurately assess and make judgments regarding financial
decisions may be impaired, especially in relation to
delusional themes. While it presently appears that the
ability to maintain physical health and safety remains intact,
there is also the possibility that the delusions will impact
these abilities in the future, especially since the delusional
themes include both persecution and grandeur.
Based upon the current results of testing, [Appellant] would
likely benefit from the continued use of a guardian who
would be able to evaluate future finances, especially larger
financial transactions; the use of a third party to manage
finances would help to ensure that [Appellant] is not taken
advantage of financially as the result of current delusional
themes, as in the case of the individuals posing as CIA and
governmental officials for financial gain. [Appellant] may
benefit from some increased financial responsibility in the
future, such as the allotment of an allowance that would
allow for him to spend money at his discretion without the
risk of losing large amounts of money due to his delusions.
Additionally, an environment that allows structure and the
ability to be monitored would likely be helpful in ensuring
that the client does not pose a threat to himself or others in
the future and to prevent future involvement with the legal
system, particularly within criminal court.
(Psychological Evaluation Report, filed 4/20/22, at 10-11). After reviewing
Dr. Laporte’s conclusions and recommendations, the court made a reasoned
determination that the conditions that necessitated Appellant’s incapacitation
continued to persist such that a review hearing was unnecessary. On this
record, we discern no error in the court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for
-9-
J-S36018-22
reconsideration without conducting a review hearing. See In re Peery,
supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/2/2023
- 10 -