In re Guardianship of Pond

[Cite as In re Guardianship of Pond, 2022-Ohio-4023.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
IN THE MATTER OF: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, P.J.
THE GUARDIANSHIP OF : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
MARY ANN POND : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
:
: Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045
:
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Delaware Court of
Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case No.
21020198PGU
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 10, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee For Appellant
ADRIANN MCGEE DAVID POND, PRO SE
200 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 800 5952 Nike Drive
Columbus, OH 43215 Hilliard, OH 43026
[Cite as In re Guardianship of Pond, 2022-Ohio-4023.]
Gwin, J.,
{¶1} Appellant appeals the May 16, 2022, judgment entry of the Delaware
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, overruling his objections to the
magistrate’s decision.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} On February 18, 2021, Elizabeth Carey (“Carey”), a caseworker with
Delaware County Department of Job and Family Services (“DCDJFS”), filed an
application for appointment of guardian of alleged incompetent Mary Ann Pond (“Mary”).
Attached to the application is a document entitled “supplemental information for
guardianship.” The document includes the following information: in October of 2020,
DCDJFS received a report about financial exploitation of Mary; when the caseworker
made contact with Mary in November of 2020, she observed Mary to be thin, disheveled,
hard to understand, and not making sense; Mary was not oriented to the month, day,
year, or her age; DCDJFS received another report about Mary regarding her increased
confusion; on January 26, 2021, medics reported Mary was very confused; Mary’s son,
appellant David Pond, reported she left a burner on the stove on and a wooden cover
over the burner caught fire; appellant accompanied Mary to the Gerlach Center on
February 5, 2021 for an evaluation of competency; appellant met with the doctor and
insisted the doctor back-date the expert report to July of 2020; when the doctor refused,
appellant got upset and left with Mary; and appellant refused to have Mary immediately
evaluated for competency to ensure her immediate safety.
{¶3} Due to a miscommunication, DCDJFS contacted multiple potential
guardians. Accordingly, attorneys Adriann McGee, S. Brewster Randall, and Christopher
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 3
Gasper each filed guardianship applications. Appellant also filed his own application for
guardianship of Mary.
{¶4} The trial court set the guardianship applications for hearing on March 9,
2021. On February 26, 2021, an “affidavit of service” was filed. The affidavit states that
a deputy clerk of court “served upon David Pond a Notice of Hearing for Appointment of
Guardian of Alleged Incompetent” by “personal service” at the Probate Court in Delaware
Ohio on February 26, 2021. The notices of hearing to Mary’s other living next of kin, sons
Robert Pond and Scott Pond, were sent via certified mail. Mary was served personally
by the probate court’s investigator.
{¶5} DCDJFS requested the trial court, pursuant to R.C. 2111.031, appoint a
physician or other qualified person to examine Mary and provide an expert evaluation to
decide whether a guardianship is necessary. The trial court granted the motion, and
appointed Princess Black, a licensed psychologist, to complete an expert evaluation of
Mary. Black submitted her statement of expert evaluation and report on March 3, 2021.
She diagnosed Mary with dementia and stated Mary could not answer any medical
questions, as Mary was disoriented and started talking about random things. Black stated
Mary was very difficult to follow, and much of what she said did not make sense. Black
concluded, due to “Mary’s state of dementia, disorientation and confusion, lack of medical
treatment, and being unable to manage her finances, a guardianship is recommended at
this time. Given her recent decline in cognitive functioning it is also recommended she
be medically assessed as soon as possible.”
{¶6} After Black’s report was filed, Nikolas McCoy (“McCoy”) filed an application
for emergency guardianship on March 3, 2021, citing Mary’s recent, substantial cognitive
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 4
decline and possible malnutrition. After an ex parte hearing, the magistrate granted the
application for emergency guardianship for a period of seventy-two hours. After a hearing
on March 5, 2021, the trial court extended the emergency guardianship until April 5, 2021.
{¶7} The trial court conducted a hearing on the five applications for appointment
of guardianship on March 9, 2021. Prior to the hearing, S. Brewster Randall withdrew his
application for guardianship due to a potential conflict of interest because he previously
served as Mary’s personal estate planning lawyer.
{¶8} At the beginning of the hearing, the magistrate inquired of each party and
their counsel, “does your client wish to challenge that finding of incompetency by the
court?” Each party/counsel responded, “no,” including appellant’s counsel. The
magistrate stated, “everyone is in agreement that Mary Ann Pond is an incompetent
person pursuant to Chapter 2111 of the Ohio Revised Code. So that issue is at rest and
does not need to be re-litigated.” During appellant’s cross-examination, counsel for
DCDJFS inquired, “at the beginning of the hearing today, you did, through your attorney,
agree to the Court’s finding of incompetence, correct?” Appellant responded, “yes.”
{¶9} Appellant presented a 2018 durable power of attorney he held for Mary’s
finances and health care. However, these powers of attorney were subsequently revoked
by Mary. Appellant also presented a durable power of attorney for financial management
Mary signed on February 11, 2021. Appellant downloaded the form for the power of
attorney from a legal website. Appellant believed Mary understood what she was doing
when she signed the document because, “she would have good days and she would have
bad days. And if – if you give her a cup of coffee, she would have a great day.” Appellant
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 5
took Mary to a bank so the employees could notarize the power of attorney. He testified
they spent about five minutes having a meeting at the bank.
{¶10} When asked if Mary is capable of making her own medical decisions,
appellant stated she can on her good days, but cannot on her bad days. Appellant
believes Mary can do activities of daily living, and “if you give her a cup of coffee, she
does great.” However, appellant confirmed Mary has had dementia “probably since about
2019.” Appellant believes Mary has Alzheimer’s dementia, and would sundown in the
evening and get very confused, but if you caught her in the morning and give her coffee,
she was not a danger to herself. When asked how he attempted to make Mary’s home
safe so she could stay at home, appellant stated he tried, but Mary would not let him
install a hand-rail or remove carpet. Appellant did turn the circuit breaker off after a
kitchen fire. Appellant did not previously exercise his power of attorney because he felt
Mary was making decisions on her good days. Appellant stated he and other family and
friends were checking on Mary.
{¶11} Appellant stated that, if he was appointed guardian, he would make sure
Mary’s house was safe and hire care for her. Even if he is not appointed guardian,
appellant wishes to assist in Mary’s care.
{¶12} Appellant confirmed he assisted in investing Mary’s funds in physical gold
and silver. Appellant testified it was a joint decision between Mary and himself, and both
of them knew his father (Mary’s husband) previously did very well investing in gold. The
gold was kept at Mary’s house, except for a shipment of approximately $20,000 that was
lost in transit.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 6
{¶13} Randall was Mary’s estate planning attorney for approximately the last five-
and-a-half years. He assisted Mary in preparing the revocations of the 2018 powers of
attorney. Mary was concerned about appellant due to his divorce and had concerns about
his ability to manage finances since he was no longer working. Appellant stated Randall
“tricked” Mary into signing the revocations. Randall denied “tricking” Mary into revoking
the documents, and stated Mary called him and the revocations were her idea.
{¶14} Carey is an investigator with DCDJFS Adult Protective Services. The
agency originally received a report about Mary on October 23, 2020, alleging Mary’s son
Scott stole $900,000 from her home. There were also concerns reported about Mary’s
cognition and her keeping large amounts of money in her home. Carey obtained the
police report on the theft incident, and discovered it was actually $98,000 allegedly stolen
from Mary’s home. Carey attempted to visit Mary’s home. She spoke with Mary’s son
Steve, who had concerns about Mary’s declining memory. Carey spoke with appellant,
who expressed concerns about Mary, such as her inability to use a phone or write a
check. Appellant had extreme concerns about people taking advantage of Mary. Carey
had concerns during her interactions with Mary, because Mary would jump from topic to
topic, could not follow a conversation, and was not oriented to the date, month, year, or
her age. Carey obtained multiple calls Mary made to the police in the prior year, including
calls where Mary stated she didn’t know how to use the stove, and a call while she was
at the vet with her pet and she was confused. Carey spoke with Dr. Tornik, Mary’s
personal physician. Tornik was long-time friends of the Pond family and appellant. Tornik
had concerns for Mary’s capacity and the potential for financial exploitation.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 7
{¶15} Mary wanted Carey to leave when she visited in December and January,
but then began talking to Carey. Mary did not allow Carey into the home, so she spoke
to Carey through the window or outside. Carey described Mary as appearing disheveled
with cognition issues. Appellant was initially cooperative with Carey, but then took Mary
and left prior to the competency evaluation because the physician would not back-date
the competency evaluation to July of 2020 when Mary changed her trust and power of
attorney. Carey again saw Mary on February 25, 2021 on her porch. Carey described
Mary as “a lot worse than [she] had seen any other time.” Mary was unable to articulate
a sentence, and thought her deceased husband was alive.
{¶16} Carey does not believe appellant would be a good legal representative to
represent Mary’s best interest because appellant was not protecting Mary or making sure
all her basic needs were being met prior to DCDJFS’ involvement. Carey believes a
guardianship is appropriate under the circumstances in order to ensure Mary’s health and
safety.
{¶17} McCoy is an attorney who was appointed emergency guardian of Mary.
When McCoy first met Mary at her home after obtaining emergency guardianship, she
answered the door clutching a stuffed animal and she was filthy. Mary let McCoy into the
house and was “very confused,” using “word salad,” or a jumble of words that has no
cohesion. McCoy called an ambulance to transport her to the hospital. McCoy returned
to the residence the next day, and found nothing in the refrigerator except condiments.
When he went to take Mary’s purse to her at the hospital, he discovered she had
$7,162.76 in cash in her purse. From his observations and discussions with multiple
individuals, including family members and the doctors taking care of Mary, McCoy
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 8
concluded that Mary has needed twenty-four-hour care for some time. McCoy knows
Mary wants to remain in her home, so it is his goal to return her to her home with the
twenty-four-hour supervision she needs, including a working alarm and security system,
which she did not have.
{¶18} McCoy believes Mary needs a guardian. He does not believe a healthcare
power of attorney and financial power of attorney are adequate to provide the authority
and protection Mary needs. Based on everything he has seen so far, up until the time he
got involved, the individuals taking care of Mary were not doing the job adequately.
{¶19} From McCoy’s investigation of Mary’s financial records, Mary wrote a check
to appellant for $96,000 in May of 2020. Mary wrote approximately $3.1 million in checks
to Hartford Gold Group in January and February of 2021. McCoy described appellant as
being unreasonable and uncooperative with him, even though McCoy does not have a
“dog in the fight” and simply is trying to be an effective guardian for Mary.
{¶20} The magistrate issued a decision on March 22, 2021. First, the magistrate
stated, “all of the applicants through counsel agreed that the issue of incompetence at
this hearing was not in dispute, and they agreed that Mrs. Pond is incompetent to make
decisions.” The magistrate found, by clear and convincing evidence, that: less restrictive
alternatives to guardianship are not working and are operationally inappropriate; Mary is
mentally impaired and is not capable of taking care of herself or her property due to
dementia; the condition manifests itself through impairment of Mary’s orientation, speech,
motor behavior, thought process, memory, concentration and comprehension
disorientation, and confusion; notice of the hearing was properly made; it is in the best
interest of Mary to have a guardian for her person and estate; and Adrian McGee is
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 9
suitable to assume the duties of guardian of the estate. The magistrate requested McCoy,
as emergency guardian of Mary’s person, apply for guardianship of the person.
{¶21} As to appellant’s argument that there were lesser restrictive alternatives to
guardianship since there are powers of attorney, the magistrate found the mere existence
of these documents is not enough to preclude a guardianship, and the court must take
into consideration whether the planning documents for a lesser restrictive alternative are
actually working. The magistrate concluded the powers of attorney were not working to
protect the interests of Mary, and Exhibit 3, dated February 11, 2021 was signed at a time
when Mary was incompetent. The magistrate found appellant assisted and encouraged
Mary to send two checks from trust accounts for approximately three million dollars to a
firm in California to buy gold and silver to be physically delivered to Mary’s house.
{¶22} McCoy filed an application for guardian of the person of Mary. The
magistrate then terminated the emergency guardianship of Mary, revoked the emergency
guardianship, and appointed McCoy as guardian of the person on March 26, 2021.
{¶23} Appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision on April 5, 2021. He
included the following objections: the financial power of attorney executed by Mary Pond
on February 11, 2021 is valid, and it should be given a reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate that it is a viable less restrictive alternative to a guardianship of the estate;
and a guardian of the person is not the least restrictive alternative for Mary Pond.
Appellant requested a hearing on his objections to the magistrate’s decision “in order to
provide evidence on relevant events that have occurred since the hearing before the
magistrate.”
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 10
{¶24} The trial court held ruling on the objections while the parties participated in
mediation. However, after mediation was unsuccessful, the trial court issued a detailed
judgment entry on May 16, 2022, overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s
decision. The trial court found appellant is not suitable to be guardian or attorney-in-fact
for Mary, stating: appellant’s opinion of Mary’s competency seems to shift based on which
opinion would give him the most say in her financial affairs; appellant has not
demonstrated sufficient financial sophistication to oversee a multi-million dollar estate, as
evidenced by his conversion of Mary’s $3.1 million liquid cash bank accounts into physical
gold and silver coins which were kept in an insecure manner; appellant is involved in
allegations of possible financial abuse of Mary, either as the accuser or the accused, so
he is not a disinterested party; during the time when appellant was allegedly Mary’s health
care and financial agent, she was physically dirty, had almost no food in her refrigerator,
and was completely incapable of carrying on even a brief conversation; during that time,
appellant did little to improve Mary’s condition apart from dropping off a meal at least once
a day; the fact that appellant could not identify how to remedy Mary’s situation in the
condition that she was in is sufficient to disqualify him from the guardian of her person;
and appellant demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the recommendations of
others when he removed Mary from the Gerlach center before she could evaluated and
when he instructed Mary not to cooperate with the court’s investigator.
{¶25} Next, the trial court found the power of attorney purportedly executed by
Mary on February 11, 2021 is insufficient to serve as a less restrictive alternative to
guardianship, and found appellant’s unsuitability renders the power of attorney an
unfeasible less restrictive alternative. As to appellant’s argument that he should be given
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 11
a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the power of attorney constitutes a less
restrictive alternative, the court noted appellant was unaware that his prior powers of
attorney were revoked until only recently, and when appellant believed he had the power
to take the same sort of actions he could take under the February 11, 2021 power of
attorney for many months, he did nothing to improve Mary’s care. The trial court also
cited the language of the February 11th power of attorney that “this document does not
authorize anyone to make medical or other health care decisions,” and stated that since
Mary is incompetent and has no valid health care power of attorney, without the
guardianship, no one would be authorized to make medical decisions for her. The trial
court concluded the February 11, 2021 power of attorney is an unfeasible less restrictive
alternative because it fails to create a mechanism for making Mary’s medical decisions.
{¶26} As to appellant’s argument that Mary sometimes has good days and bad
days, and good hours and bad hours, the court found, “the fact that Ms. Pond may
sometimes have the capacity to make her own financial decisions is simply not sufficient
to protect her property and economic security all the time * * * an agent acting pursuant
to a power of attorney cannot maintain the constant vigilance that would be necessary to
ensure that no one takes advantage of Ms. Pond given her advanced dementia, therefore
the severe restrictions of a full guardianship are necessary.” The trial court determined a
full guardianship was necessary to protect Mary and is in her best interest.
{¶27} The trial court overruled appellant’s objection to McCoy as the guardian,
finding the Rules of Superintendence were met in the appointment of him as guardian,
and noted the basis for appellant’s objection is largely based on events that occurred
subsequent to the hearing.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 12
{¶28} Appellant appeals the May 16, 2022, judgment entry of the Delaware
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, and assigns the following as error:
{¶29} “I. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT HELD THREE EMERGENCY HEARINGS ON [THE] COMPETENCY OF
MARY ANN POND WITHOUT NOTIFYING HER OR HER FAMILY. ESPECIALLY
WHEN DR. DAVID POND REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT TO THE APS WORKER
WELL IN ADVANCE OF ANY HEARING.
{¶30} “II. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT IGNORED MARY ANN POND’S FOURTH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
RIGHT AND SENT A COURT INVESTIGATOR TO HER HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE EVENING WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITHOUT GIVING HER THE CHANCE TO
HAVE FAMILY OR HER ATTORNEY PRESENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS NO
RISK OF DANGER TO MARY ANN POND BY OTHERS, AND SHE WAS NOT A
DANGER TO HERSELF. MARY ANN POND WAS NOT IN ANY EMERGENCY
SITUATION AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY.
{¶31} “III. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT TOOK VERBAL EVIDENCE FROM NICHOLAS MCCOY AS A COURT
INVESTIGATOR THAT WAS OBTAINED AGAINST THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST THE WILL OF MARY ANN POND WHEN HE
CAME TO HER HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EVENING AND BARGED INTO HER
HOUSE WITHOUT HER PERMISSION TO PERFORM AN INVESTIGATION. IN FACT,
MARY ANN POND HAD TOLD THE APS WORKER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS SHE
DID NOT WANT HER AROUND AND TOLD ANY AND ALL PROBATE COURT
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 13
INDIVIDUALS THE SAME. MARY ANN POND DID EVERYTHING IN HER POWER TO
AVOID ANY PROBATE INVOLVEMENT IN HER LIFE, AS EVIDENCED BY HER AND
HER HUSBAND’S TRUSTS. THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY BY ATTORNEY
MCCOY NOT ONLY WAS FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE AS IT WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
PERSON AND PROPERTY. MR. MCCOY DID NOT SHOW EVIDENCE OF ANY OF
HIS ALLEGATIONS TO PROVE THAT THE INFORMATION HE PROVIDED WAS TRUE
AND WITHOUT ERROR. THERE WAS NO TRUE EMERGENCY, SHE WAS NOT A
DANGER TO HERSELF, AND SHE WAS NOT IN DANGER FROM OTHERS. SHE WAS
NOT MALNOURISHED AS EVIDENCED BY MEDICAL REPORTS FROM HER
PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN OFFICE ONE WEEK PRIOR TO HER BEING TAKEN.
{¶32} “IV. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT IGNORED MEDICAL TESTIMONY FROM DR. DAVID POND, A LICENSED
PHYSICIAN IN THE STATE OF OHIO WITH OVER 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE, OVER
THAT OF ATTORNEY NICHOLAS MCCOY AND BETH CAREY WHO BOTH HAVE NO
KNOWN MEDICAL CREDENTIALS, LICENSURE, SKILLS, OR TRAINING ON BEING
ABLE TO DETERMINE MEDICAL CONDITIONS IN INDIVIDUALS.
{¶33} “V. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT WENT AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID POND WHEN HE
STATED HIS MOTHER WAS NOT INCOMPETENT AND HE COULD HAVE
COMMUNICATIONS WITH HER AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE
WANTED AND NEEDED.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 14
{¶34} “VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
IT WENT AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID POND WHEN HE STATED HE
HAD NOT TAKEN OVER HIS MOTHER’S FINANCES, NOR INVOKED HIS CONTROL
OVER HER PERSON OR HER TRUSTS. DR. DAVID POND WAS STILL
COMMUNICATING WITH HIS MOTHER AND HELPING HER WITH MEALS, BUT
MARY ANN POND WAS STILL PERFORMING HER ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING,
SHE WAS NOT WANDERING, AND SHE WAS STILL [IN CHARGE OF] HER CARE.
SHE WAS STILL VERY MUCH IN CONTROL OF HER FINANCES. TO THE EXTENT
THAT SHE NEEDED HELP, SHE HAD HIRED MICHELLE SHERMAN TO FURTHER
HELP WITH HER FINANCES. AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION, MARY ANN
POND WAS IN SOUND MIND TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR HERSELF, ACCORDING
TO MYSELF AND AN EXPERT WITNESS IN HEALTHCARE.
{¶35} “VII. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT IGNORED OHIO LAW AND DID NOT ALLOW FOR THE LESSER
RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO GUARDIANSHIP.
{¶36} “VIII. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT IGNORED THAT THE TRUSTS OF MARY ANN POND AND ROBERT J.
POND HAD [BEEN] SET UP TO AVOID PROBATE COURT, AND WERE IN AND OF
THEMSELVES A LESSER RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO GUARDIANSHIP.
{¶37} “IX. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT IGNORED A MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND A GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY SIGNED BY MARY ANN POND SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO BEING
DECLARED INCOMPETENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN DR. DAVID POND HELD THE
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 15
CONFIDENCE OF HIS MOTHER MARY ANN POND SINCE EARLY 2000 WHEN HE
WAS HER MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SINCE HE BECAME A PHYSICIAN.
{¶38} “X. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT REFUSED TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE OBJECTION TO THE
MAGISTRATE’S DECISION, EFFECTIVELY BARRING US FROM OFFERING UP THE
PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS, AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE.
{¶39} “XI. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT ALLOWED A GUARDIAN TO REPRESENT THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTS
AND ARGUE IN COURT AGAINST MOTIONS AND EVEN THIS APPEAL WHEN THE
WARD, MARY ANN POND, HAD BEEN APPOINTED A COURT-APPOINTED
ATTORNEY.
{¶40} “XII. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT REMOVED DR. DAVID POND FROM GUARDIANSHIP OF MARY ANN POND
BASED ON FINANCIAL ADVICE GIVEN TO MARY ANN POND ABOUT BUYING
PHYSICAL GOLD AND SILVER DURING TIMES OF ECONOMIC TURMOIL AND
HYPERINFLATION.
{¶41} “XIII. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
BY MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON HEARSAY THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE
WHEN ACCEPTING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS WOULD HAVE PROVEN THE
TRUTH OF THE MATTER.”
Failure to Object & Plain Error
{¶42} We initially note that appellant failed to object to many of the issues he
raises on appeal at either the hearing before the magistrate or in his objections to the
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 16
magistrate’s decision. On those issues, appellant has therefore waived all but plain error.
The plain error doctrine is applicable in civil cases only where the error “seriously affects
the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.” Lowder v.
Domingo, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2016CA00043, 2017-Ohio-1241.
I.
{¶43} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the probate court erred and
abused its discretion when it held three emergency hearings on competency of Mary
without notifying her or her family.
{¶44} Appellant did not raise this argument at the hearing or in his objections to
the magistrate’s decision. Accordingly, a plain error review applies. It is unclear whether
appellant is referencing the emergency guardianship hearing, or the full guardianship
hearing starting on March 9, 2021.
{¶45} As to the emergency guardianship hearing, appellant did not appeal the
appointment of the emergency guardian. Additionally, pursuant to R.C. 2111.02 and R.C.
2111.04, an emergency guardianship hearing is an ex parte hearing, and no notice is
required until after the emergency guardian is appointed.
{¶46} With regard to the March 9th hearing, proper notice of the hearing was
provided. The deputy clerk served appellant with notice of the hearing by personal service
on February 26, 2021. The notices of hearing to Mary’s other living next of kin, sons
Robert Pond and Scott Pond, were sent via certified mail. Mary was served personally
by the probate court investigator. Additionally, appellant and his brothers all actually
attended the March 9th hearing, and each had the opportunity to present evidence and
be heard.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 17
{¶47} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶48} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred
and abused its discretion by admitting “illegal evidence” that Carey obtained in violation
of Mary’s Fourth Amendment constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure when Carey went to Mary’s house without consent and without her family present.
{¶49} Appellant did not raise this argument in his objections to the magistrate’s
decision. Accordingly, a plain error review applies. We find no plain error in this case.
Carey testified that when she visited Mary’s home, she did not go into the house. Rather,
Carey spoke to Mary through a window or outside and, after initially stating she did not
want to talk to her, Mary voluntarily spoke to Carey through the window or outside the
home. Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶50} In his third assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its
discretion when it admitted McCoy’s testimony because the information McCoy related in
his testimony was obtained in violation of Mary’s Fourth Amendment constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure because McCoy entered Mary’s home without
her permission.
{¶51} Appellant did not raise this argument in his objections to the magistrate’s
decision. Accordingly, a plain error review applies. We find no plain error in this case.
McCoy went to Mary’s house after being appointed her emergency guardian, and entered
the home with consent because Mary let him into the home. Any “search” McCoy made
was for financial documents, a key to lock the home, and to collect Mary’s personal effects
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 18
to deliver to her at the hospital. These actions were all taken pursuant to his duties and
powers as Mary’s guardian. Further, McCoy is a private party, not a state actor subject
to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The “Fourth Amendment’s proscription on searches and
seizures are inapplicable to private action.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109,
104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); Village of Granville v. Eastman, 5th Dist. Licking
No. 2006CA00050, 2006-Ohio-6237.
{¶52} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.
IV., V., VI.
{¶53} In his fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error, appellant contends the
trial court abused its discretion when it “ignored” his testimony that Mary was not
incompetent, as appellant testified that Mary was performing her activities of daily living,
was in control of her finances, and was in sound mind to make decisions herself.
{¶54} During the emergency guardianship hearing, the magistrate found Mary
incompetent. This finding was adopted and approved by the trial court. Appellant did not
appeal the emergency guardianship entry or incompetency finding. At the beginning of
the full guardianship hearing, the magistrate inquired of each party and their counsel
whether they or their client wanted to challenge the finding of incompetency by the trial
court. Each party or counsel responded, “no,” including counsel for appellant. The
magistrate stated, “everyone is in agreement that Mary Ann Pond is an incompetent
person pursuant to Chapter 2111 of the Ohio Revised Code * * * so that issue does not
need to be re-litigated.” Further, counsel for DCDJFS inquired of appellant, “at the
beginning of the hearing today, you did, through your attorney, agree to the Court’s finding
of incompetence, correct?” Appellant responded, “yes.”
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 19
{¶55} Thus, Mary’s competency was not at issue during the hearing. A stipulation
is a voluntary agreement, admission, or concession made by the parties or their attorneys
concerning disposition of some relevant point in order to eliminate the need for proof or
to narrow the range of issues to be litigated. State v. Small, 162 Ohio App.3d 375, 2005-
Ohio-3813, 833 N.E.2d 774 (10th Dist. Franklin); Baum v. Baum, 9th Dist. Wayne No.
97CA0022, 1997 WL 775770 (Nov. 26, 1997). When parties “choose to stipulate facts in
lieu of presenting evidence, they [waive] any error that may have occurred with respect
to the fact that the trial court decided * * *.” State v. Miller, 3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-20-
14, 2021-Ohio-4472; Crow v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 159 Ohio App.3d 417, 2004-Ohio-
7117, 824 N.E.2d 127 (5th Dist.).
{¶56} Further, as to appellant’s contention that the trial court “ignored” his
testimony, it is clear the trial court did take his testimony into consideration, but did not
find it credible given the testimony of the other witnesses, and because appellant’s
testimony was inconsistent. We defer to the trial court on the issue of credibility because
the trial court 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
proferred testimony.” Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273(1984).
{¶57} Appellants, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are overruled.
VII., VIII., IX.
{¶58} In his seventh, eighth, and ninth assignments of error, appellant argues the
trial court abused its discretion when it found the trust documents and power of attorney
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 20
were not appropriate less restrictive alternatives available in lieu of an independent
guardian.
{¶59} A probate court’s decision to appoint a guardian is generally within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
In re Guardianship of Borland, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2002CA00410, 2003-Ohio-6870. An
abuse of discretion indicates the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140(1983). “A reviewing court will not reverse a judgment appointing a guardian as an abuse
of discretion if it is supported by competent and credible evidence.” In re Guardianship
of Waller, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100131, 2011-Ohio-313{¶60} R.C. 2111.02(C) provides that evidence of a less restrictive alternative to
guardianship may be introduced, and, if introduced, shall be considered by the court. A
probate court may deny a guardianship if it finds a less restrictive alternative to
guardianship exists. R.C. 2111.02(C)(6). However, while the statute requires the trial
court to consider the existence of a less restrictive alternative to guardianship, it does not
require a probate court to deny an application for guardianship simply because evidence
of less restrictive alternatives is produced. In re Guardianship of Collins, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2013-08—0072, 2014-Ohio-5750. In matters relating to guardianship, the
probate court is required to act in the best interest of the ward. Id.{¶61} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a
guardianship was necessary and that a less restrictive alternative in the form of the power
of attorney or trust would not sufficiently protect Mary. Although appellant argues the
power of attorney was sufficient to provide for the care and safety of Mary because she
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 21
was capable of making decisions, during the hearing, appellant stipulated that Mary was
incompetent.
{¶62} The trial court found the power of attorney executed in February of 2021
was not a viable alternative to appointment of a guardian. The trial court noted that, when
appellant thought he held a valid durable and health care power of attorney, he did nothing
to improve Mary’s care. The trial court also found it concerning that the February 2021
power of attorney specifically and intentionally does not authorize anyone to make
medical or health care decisions; since Mary is incompetent and has no other valid health
care power of attorney, no one would be authorized to make medical decisions absent a
guardianship. Though appellant argues the health care power of attorney Mary executed
in 2018 protects her, there was undisputed and unrebutted evidence that Mary revoked
the health care power of attorney. The trial court further found that even if Mary had “good
hours,” as testified to by appellant, that is not sufficient to protect her property because a
power of attorney cannot maintain the constant vigilance needed to ensure no one takes
advance of Mary due to her advanced dementia. The trial court concluded it was in Mary’s
best interest to establish a guardianship.
{¶63} Upon review, we conclude the trial court could have reasonably determined
that the terms of the preexisting trust and power of attorney were insufficient to provide
the type of protection of Mary’s assets that the appointment of a guardian would provide.
Similarly, the trial court could have reasonably determined that the power of attorney was
insufficient to provide the type of safety and security needed, and insufficient to provide
for Mary’s medical decisions. McCoy and Carey both testified that Mary needs a
guardian.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 22
{¶64} Appellant’s seventh, eighth, and ninth assignments of error are overruled.
X.
{¶65} In his tenth assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court abused
its discretion in not holding a hearing on appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s
decision.
{¶66} Pursuant to Civil Rule 53(D)(4)(d), “* * *In ruling on objections, the court
shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the
magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.
Before so ruling, the court may hear additional evidence but may refuse to do so unless
the objecting party demonstrates that the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have
produced that evidence for consideration by the magistrate.” Civil Rule 53(D)(4)(d) does
not require the trial court to hold a hearing prior to ruling on a party’s objections to a
magistrate’s decision.
{¶67} In his request for hearing, appellant stated he wished to present “additional
evidence” to the trial court. Rule 53(D)(4)(d) does not require courts to take additional
evidence. Rather, the rule permits courts to take or preclude additional evidence if they
wish to do so. Donofrio v. Whitman, 191 Ohio App.3d 727, 2010-Ohio-6406, 947 N.E.2d
715 (7th Dist.). The trial court has discretion to decide whether to hear additional
evidence after the parties submit objections to the magistrate’s report. In re J.W., 5th
Dist. Richland No. 2021 CA 0007, 2021-Ohio-2917. Accordingly, when a trial court hears
or does not hear additional evidence, we review this decision under an abuse of discretion
standard. Parrish v. Parrish, 5th Dist. Knox No. 15CA4, 2015-Ohio-4560.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 23
{¶68} Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying appellant’s motion to hear additional evidence. In his request for
hearing, appellant did not state what additional evidence he sought to present, or
demonstrate how he could not, with reasonable diligence, have presented the evidence
to the magistrate. Appellant’s tenth assignment of error is overruled.
XI.
{¶69} In his eleventh assignment of error, appellant argues the probate court erred
and abused its discretion when it permitted the guardian to argue in court “against motions
and even this appeal.”
{¶70} Appellant did not raise this argument in his objections to the magistrate’s
decision. Accordingly, a plain error review applies.
{¶71} We find no plain error in this case. Appellant provides no legal support, and
this Court can find no legal authority, for his contention that an applicant for guardianship
and/or his or her counsel cannot argue or respond to certain motions or appeals.
{¶72} Appellant’s eleventh assignment of error is overruled.
XII.
{¶73} In his twelfth assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court abused
its discretion when it “removed him from guardianship” based on financial advice given to
Mary about buying physical gold and silver.
{¶74} We first note that appellant was not “removed” from being Mary’s guardian,
as he was never appointed Mary’s guardian. Further, the trial court did not deny
appellant’s application for guardianship based upon the financial advice about buying
physical gold and silver. The trial court specifically stated, “to be clear, the Court does
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 24
not question investment in gold as an asset class, but the investment in physical gold to
be kept in an insecure manner demonstrates poor financial judgment.” The trial court
was concerned that appellant told Carey that Mary could not even write a check, but then
testified at the guardianship hearing that Mary was capable of handling her own finances.
The trial court additionally found appellant’s opinion about Mary’s capabilities
inconsistent, and found appellant’s opinions were closely linked to what gave appellant
the greatest control over Mary’s finances. Because of these issues, the trial court
determined appellant was ineligible to serve as Mary’s financial agent. Additionally, the
trial court found appointing appellant as guardian of Mary’s estate would create an
impermissible conflict pursuant to Superintendence Rule 66 because he was previously
involved in reporting a theft and was accused by others of financially taking advantage of
Mary.
{¶75} Appellant also contends McCoy is an unsuitable guardian, and appellant
himself should have been appointed guardian. When considering an application for
appointment of a guardian, a probate court must determine whether a guardian is required
and also determine who shall be appointed guardian. In re Guardianship of Collins, 12th
Dist. Warren No. CA2013-08-0072, 2014-Ohio-5750. A probate court has broad
discretion in appointing guardians, and decisions regarding the appointment of a guardian
will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id. The probate court is
required to act in the best interest of the ward. Id.{¶76} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s
decision to appoint McCoy rather than appellant. When appellant was purportedly acting
under a health care and financial power of attorney for Mary, Mary was physically dirty,
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 25
had almost no food in her refrigerator, and was incapable of carrying on a brief
conversation. During this time, appellant did little to improve her condition. Additionally,
appellant testified inconsistently about Mary’s competency when discussing her ability to
maintain her finances, and appellant was both the accuser and the accused in the alleged
mishandling of Mary’s financial affairs.
{¶77} The trial court believed the testimony of Carey and McCoy, and the
statement of expert evaluation of Black, rather than the testimony of appellant. As an
appellate court, we do not function as fact-finders; we neither weigh the evidence nor
judge the credibility of the witnesses. Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77,
461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984). Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent,
and credible evidence upon which the fact-finder could base his or her judgment. Id. The
trial court is “best able to view the witness and observe their demeanor, gestures, and
voice inflictions, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered
testimony.” Id.{¶78} Appellant’s twelfth assignment of error is overruled.
XIII.
{¶79} In his final assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its
discretion by making decisions based on hearsay that “turned out to be false.”
{¶80} Appellant did not object to any testimony at the hearing on the basis of
hearsay. Further, appellant did not raise this argument in his objections to the
magistrate’s decision. Accordingly, a plain error review applies.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 26
{¶81} We find no plain error in this case. Appellant fails to specifically identify
what statements he alleges were improper hearsay, or how the trial court relied on the
statements in its judgment entry.
{¶82} Appellant mentions what he believes are “glaring errors” of Carey and
McCoy about the amount mentioned in a police report and the amount of cash Mary
carried in her purse. Carey testified that DCDJFS was initially notified by law enforcement
of an allegation by Mary that her son Scott stole $900,000 from her home. However,
when Carey actually obtained the police report, it stated that Mary and appellant together
reported that Scott stole $98,000. There was no “error” by Carey, and instead she was
testifying about the amount reported versus the amount contained in the police report.
Appellant also states Carey “inflated” the amount of cash in Mary’s purse “from $7,100 to
$500,000.” Carey stated there was approximately $7,100 in Mary’s purse, but did not
testify there was $500,000 in Mary’s purse. Rather, Carey reported there was $500,000
in Mary’s house. McCoy testified during the hearing that there was $7,162.76 in Mary’s
purse.
{¶83} Appellant’s thirteenth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶84} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignments of error are overruled.
Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAF 06 0045 27
{¶85} The May 16, 2022 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed.