Forton v. St. Clair Cnty. Pub. Guardian

339 Mich.App. 73

981 N.W.2d 103

Leonard M. FORTON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, Amanda Seals, St. Clair County Community Mental Health, and Ann Marie Daniels-Hillman, Defendants-Appellees,andVision Quest Recovery, LLC, and Ann Purauy, Defendants.

No. 354825

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Sept. 14, 2021, at Detroit.

Decided September 23, 2021, 9:10 a.m.

Leonard M. Forton, Sr., in propria persona.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC, Livonia (by Douglas J. Curlew ) for St. Clair Community Mental Health and Ann M. Daniels.

Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Francis, PC, Port Huron (by Todd J. Shoudy ) for St. Clair County Public Guardian and Amanda Seals.

Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Redford, JJ.

Per Curiam.

In this action related to a guardianship proceeding, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's orders granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) to defendants Ann Marie Daniels-Hillman, an employee of defendant St. Clair County Community Mental Health (SCC Community Mental Health), and Amanda Seals, an employee of defendant St. Clair County Public Guardian (the Public Guardian).¹ Specifically, defendants were apprised that a legally incapacitated court ward was advising other residents at her residential treatment facility that she was subject to sexual abuse by her legal guardian's husband, plaintiff. Consequently, defendants took measures to protect the court ward: (1) by requesting the removal of the legal guardian; (2) by seeking a personal protection order to prevent plaintiff's contact with the court ward; (3) by referring the matter to investigating agencies; and (4) by seeking the appointment of individuals to act for the court ward's benefit. Thus, in the course of fulfilling their responsibilities to protect the court ward, defendants prepared documents and made statements before the probate court. When it was reported to defendant Seals that plaintiff was present in a hospital room with the court ward, she apprised the probate court, and it issued a show cause for plaintiff's alleged violation of a no-contact provision. However, the show cause was dismissed once it was learned that recorded evidence of the violation was lacking and that the court ward was hospitalized and confused. Although a criminal investigation occurred, the police did not pursue criminal charges against plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff, acting in propria persona , filed a multicount complaint against defendants seemingly contending that defendants conspired and raised false allegations against him. The trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendants. Defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because their statements, made during the course of judicial proceedings, are absolutely privileged. The statements were relevant, material, or pertinent to the issue being tried, the need for a suitable legal guardian to supervise and protect the court ward. The fact that recorded evidence did not exist to support defendants’ statements did not abrogate the privilege; rather, the privilege must be liberally construed to allow participants in judicial proceedings to be free to express themselves without fear of retaliation. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of the related probate proceeding concerning the guardianship of a legally incapacitated nonparty (NK). Plaintiff alleged that he met NK at a bus stop years earlier, the pair bonded, and he allowed NK to live in a trailer on his property. In May 2016, plaintiff's wife, Lynne Forton, petitioned to be named as NK's guardian. Forton alleged that NK was legally incapacitated as a result of both mental illness and chronic intoxication. The probate court granted the petition, finding that NK was "totally" incapacitated as a result of the alleged conditions, and the court appointed Forton as NK's full guardian. The probate court also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent NK.

Following a review hearing in May 2017, the probate court ordered NK to "make arrangements to live at Vision Quest," which is a residential treatment facility for substance abuse, "until further order of the court." In July 2017, defendant Daniels-Hillman completed a "Contact Note" documenting a telephone call that she had received in the course of her employment with defendant SCC Community Mental Health from the "Vision Quest Home Manager," defendant Ann Purauy.² According to the note, Purauy expressed concerns for NK because NK had advised the residents of Vision Quest that she performed sexual favors for plaintiff in exchange for money. NK reportedly went to plaintiff's home on a daily basis, would not return to Vision Quest "until bed time," consumed alcohol at plaintiff's home, and brought alcohol back with her to Vision Quest. In response to the report, Daniels-Hillman contacted Adult Protective Services (APS) and the probate court's liaison, to whom she reported Purauy's allegations. Later that day, Daniels-Hillman met with the court liaison and defendant Seals at the probate court.

As a result of that meeting, Daniels-Hillman filed a petition with the probate court to modify NK's guardianship by appointing the Public Guardian as NK's guardian in lieu of Forton. In support, Daniels-Hillman indicated that she had received allegations from Vision Quest staff and others that plaintiff and Forton were possibly purchasing alcohol for NK and that plaintiff "was asking for sexual favors in exchange for money[.]" Daniels-Hillman also filed a "Notification of Noncompliance" with the probate court, again repeating Purauy's report that NK was not complying with her court-ordered substance abuse treatment.

On August 3, 2017, Daniels-Hillman filed a petition in the probate court requesting an emergency guardianship hearing. In support, she relayed Purauy's concerns that plaintiff had contact with NK while she was hospitalized, including his presence while NK was changing clothes. Purauy had also reported that plaintiff had given NK "Benadryl," which resulted in NK being hospitalized again because it caused her difficulty with breathing and swallowing. Daniels-Hillman expressed concern that Forton, as NK's guardian, was not available during NK's last two hospitalizations because Forton had "medical issues of her own." Indeed, when transportation was necessary for NK, it was provided by plaintiff, not Forton. At the ensuing hearing, which the probate court held that same day, it questioned Daniels-Hillman concerning Purauy's allegations. After considering the matter, the probate court removed Forton as guardian, appointed the Public Guardian as NK's temporary guardian, and ordered "no contact" between NK and plaintiff (or Forton) outside the presence of either "hospital staff" or a representative of the Public Guardian.

The allegations against plaintiff were subsequently investigated by both APS and the police. NK eventually admitted to her GAL and an APS caseworker that, before Forton was appointed as NK's guardian, NK and plaintiff had engaged in a "consensual" sexual relationship, about which Forton was aware. According to NK, plaintiff indicated that Forton had medical conditions that left her unable to "perform sexually," and he asked NK to "give him his needs." In return for having sex with plaintiff, NK received alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs (including opiates) from plaintiff and Forton. NK advised that plaintiff used Viagra and condoms during their sexual encounters that occurred either in a trailer or plaintiff's bed. Although NK was "disgusted" by her sexual relationship with plaintiff and "didn't feel comfortable doing it," she nevertheless consented to it. Their quid-pro-quo sexual relationship continued after Forton was appointed as NK's guardian, and plaintiff and Forton continued to supply NK with drugs and alcohol after Forton's appointment as guardian.

When interviewed by the police, plaintiff admitted that he gave NK alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food. He denied giving NK any opiates but claimed that he gave NK "aspirin type pills." When questioned about a sexual relationship, plaintiff stated that NK once told him that the pair had sex, but he could not remember it. Plaintiff explained that his lack of recollection occurred because "he smoked lots of marijuana." Plaintiff presented documentation listing medications that he took for a degenerative disc condition and chronic pain and indicated that he had erectile dysfunction. Plaintiff declined to admit to any sexual relationship with NK despite being advised that NK reported any sexual acts were consensual. He also advised that he was a paralegal. When walking out of the interview, plaintiff reportedly told the interviewing officer, "Honestly, I didn't think you'd believe me," to which the officer responded, "I don't." Nonetheless, charges were not pursued in light of NK's mental and medical issues, her admission to consensual sex and occasional manipulation of plaintiff, Forton's removal as guardian, and the court's order that plaintiff not have contact with NK.

In August 2017, Seals, who was performing as NK's guardian on behalf of the Public Guardian's office, informed Daniels-Hillman that she was planning to seek a personal protection order against plaintiff on NK's behalf. Seals explained that she had received a report that plaintiff had visited NK in the hospital "over the weekend," though it was unclear whether he did so in violation of the probate court's "no contact" order because Seals did not know whether hospital staff had been present during the visit.

At an ensuing review hearing, the probate court asked Seals to inform the court about what had "been happening with [NK]" since the Public Guardian's appointment in this matter. As relevant here, Seals answered:

So [NK] was hospitalized since the last hearing, after she had violated her substance abuse order. [Pla

...