Gavin v. Loeffelbein

205 A.3d 1209

Monica GAVIN and Lucia Carezani, Executrix of the Estate of James Gavin, Deceased, Appellants

v.Elaine LOEFFELBEIN, Appellee

No. 74 MAP 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: September 7, 2018

Decided: March 26, 2019

OPINION

JUSTICE DONOHUE

The issues presented for review in this civil tort action implicate various provisions of chapter 55 of Pennsylvania's Probate Estates and Fiduciaries Code (the "Code").¹ In particular, this appeal addresses the meaning and effect of section 5513 of the Code, which relates to the appointment of emergency guardians. Given its centrality to the resolution of this case, we begin by setting forth the pertinent portion of the provision:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5511 (relating to petition and hearing; independent evaluation), the court, upon petition and a hearing at which clear and convincing evidence is shown, may appoint an emergency guardian or guardians of the person or estate of a person alleged to be incapacitated, when it appears that the person lacks capacity, is in need of a guardian and a failure to make such appointment will result in irreparable harm to the person or estate of the alleged incapacitated person. The provisions of section 5511, including those relating to counsel, shall be applicable to such proceedings, except when the court has found that it is not feasible in the circumstances. An emergency guardian so appointed for the person or estate of an alleged incapacitated person shall only have and be subject to such powers, duties and liabilities and serve for such time as the court shall direct in its decree.

20 Pa.C.S. § 5513.² In addition, an emergency order appointing an emergency guardian of the person

may be in effect for up to [seventy-two] hours. If the emergency continues, then the emergency order may be extended for no more than [twenty] days from the expiration of the initial emergency order. After expiration of the emergency order or any extension, a full guardianship proceeding must be initiated pursuant to section 5511.

Id . By contrast, "[a]n emergency order appointing an emergency guardian of the estate shall not exceed [thirty] days. After [thirty] days, a full guardianship proceeding must be initiated pursuant to section 5511." Id . (hereinafter, the "Termination Provisions").³

Based on the foregoing language, the Superior Court held that an emergency order for a guardianship of an estate automatically expires after thirty days. Gavin v. Loeffelbein , 161 A.3d 340, 349-50 (Pa. Super. 2017). The parties did not challenge the vitality of the emergency guardianship in the trial court. Nor did either party raise any claim before the Superior Court regarding the termination of the guardianship order or the appropriate interpretation of the Termination Provisions. In addressing an issue actually raised on appeal, the Superior Court further held that an individual subject to emergency guardianship is not incapacitated and is not precluded from making decisions about his property even when his guardian has been ordered by the court to do so on his behalf. Id . at 351.

We granted allocatur to address the propriety of both of these determinations. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the Superior Court's decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The relevant background of this litigation follows. Appellant, Monica Gavin, brought an action alleging trespass, conversion, negligence and punitive damages against Appellee, Elaine Loeffelbein, the sister of Appellant's estranged spouse, James Gavin ("James"). The gravamen of the underlying dispute was that, despite the appointment on May 24, 2012 of an emergency guardian of James' estate, Appellee, accompanied by James, entered the couple's former marital residence (hereinafter, "FMR") on July 9, 2012 and removed certain memorabilia that James wanted to protect from dissipation and pass on to his children.⁴ Id . at 344. When Appellee contacted James' emergency guardian, Laurie Dart Schnaufer ("Schnaufer"), in early July and asked if she could enter the FMR herself to secure the memorabilia, Schnaufer refused her request, indicating that she would take care of it. Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2016, at 2. In addition, when Appellee attempted to contact Schnaufer on July 9, she was unsuccessful. Thus, according to Appellant, Appellee acted without the consent or participation of Schnaufer, and therefore without any valid consent, because James, being incapacitated, was legally incapable of providing it.

At the time of the alleged torts, Appellant lived in the FMR with their children, while James resided at an independent living facility called Above and Beyond, having been moved there on May 25, 2012 by Schnaufer. Id . At all relevant times, Appellant and James were in the midst of a contested divorce.⁵

The proceeding that led to the appointment of Schnaufer as James' emergency guardian occurred on May 24, 2012 in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (the "orphans' court"). James' divorce attorney, Gerald Barr ("Barr"), filed the petition for appointment of a guardian on May 16, 2012. Order Appointing Emergency Guardians, 5/24/2012, at 1. Following the section 5513 hearing, the orphans' court issued an emergency order in which it made the following findings:

1. The alleged incapacitated person's ability to receive and evaluate information effectively is significantly impaired and his ability to communicate reasonable decisions is impaired thereby.

[2.] The alleged incapacitated person is in need of a guardian of the person and a guardian of the estate pending a full hearing on the merits of a petition under § 5511 of the [Code].

[3.] The failure to make appointments of emergency guardians will result in irreparable harm to the person and estate of the alleged incapacitated person.

Id . Next, the order set forth Schnaufer's duties and responsibilities as emergency guardian. Specifically, as emergency guardian of James' estate, the order afforded to Schnaufer the "powers, duties and responsibilities ... to ascertain, assemble and administer" all of James' property and "to identify and ascertain the nature, extent and whereabouts of" all property co-owned by James and another person, including property that was conveyed by or on behalf of James in the last year. Id . at 2. The order also gave Schnaufer authority to make decisions on James' behalf relating to his pending divorce. Id .⁶

Finally, the order expressed that both emergency guardians would continue to serve until the "conclusion of a full hearing" under section 5511 of the Code, the petition for which "shall be filed ... within [thirty] days of the date of this Order."Id. (emphasis added). The civil docket indicates that a section 5511 petition for the appointment of a permanent guardian of the person and estate was filed seven days later, on May 31, 2012. The full section 5511 hearing was scheduled for August 20, 2012. At the conclusion of that hearing, the orphans' court found James to be incapacitated and "in need of plenary guardianship services." Decree, 8/21/2012, at 1.⁷

The trial judge who presided over the civil tort action was the same judge who, sitting in the orphans' court, issued the emergency and permanent guardianship orders. Throughout the life of this case in the trial court, including a full jury trial, the parties litigated the issues with the understanding, shared by the trial judge, that the emergency order appointing Schnaufer as guardian of James' estate was in effect at the time of Appellee's allegedly tortious conduct. At no point during trial, in post-trial motions or in the parties' briefs on appeal to the Superior Court was any issue raised about the continued validity, on July 9, 2012, of the emergency order.

Following closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury regarding the relevant legal standards it must apply. Regarding conversion, the trial court explained:

Conversion essentially requires proof that [Appellee] interfered without lawful justification, with [Appellant's] right of property in a particular asset. Showing that [Appellee] acted without lawful justification is an element of the prima facie case of conversion on which [Appellant] bears the burden of proof. Lawful justification is not an affirmative defense.

N.T., 6/12/2015, at 973.

The trial court also instructed the jury regarding James' capacity to consent. Id . at 964. The court read sections 5501 and 5502 of the Code directly to the jury. Section 5501 defines an incapacitated person 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 Pa.C.S. § 5501. Section 5502 sets forth the purpose of the Code, emphasizing, inter alia, that it is designed "to promote the general welfare of all citizens by establishing a system which permits incapacitated persons to participate as fully as possible in all decisions which affect them."Id ., § 5502. The trial court also read part of section 5513 to the jury.⁸ N.T., 6/12/2015, at 966. Next, the trial court recited portions of the May 24, 2012 order appointing James' emergency guardians.

Finally, the trial court instructed the jury:

Now, an emergency guardian of the person and of the [e]state -- emergency guardians are temporary. And as you may have noted, the appointment was subject to a full hearing on the merits of a petition under [ section 5511 ]. That [ section 5511 ] hearing, which was held on August [20], 2012, at which time I determined that [James] was indeed incapacitated, and I adjudicated him incapacitated. With respect to the emergency guardian of the person[, it] was limited to placement, and to make medical decisions. And the emergency guardian of the [e]state was for the powers that I mentioned, in terms of

...