Case Law In re Steele

In re Steele

Document Cited Authorities (8) Cited in (1) Related

Alice M. Busch, Tionesta, for appellant.

Barbara C. Litten, Tionesta, for Warren General Hospital, participating party.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., SOLANO, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

OPINION BY SOLANO, J.:

Appellant Victoria A. Steele appeals from the order entered January 10, 2017, by the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, which resolved the petition for appointment of a permanent guardian for Steel that was filed by Warren General Hospital ("Hospital"). Steele challenges the orphans' court's denial of her request to have the issues presented by Hospital's petition determined before a jury. We reverse.

On November 1, 2016, Hospital filed a petition for appointment of an "emergency guardian of the person and estate of Victoria A. Steele." Pet. for Appointment of Emergency Guardian, 11/1/16, at 1 (not paginated). Later that day, a hearing on that emergency petition was scheduled for November 7, 2016. Order, 11/1/16. According to an affidavit of service filed on November 7, 2016, Steele was served with the petition for appointment of an emergency guardian on November 4, 2016.

The scheduled hearing was held on November 7, 2016, and, in an order dated November 8, 2016, the orphans' court "found Steele to be incapacitated and in need of a guardian of the estate and of the person and appointed HelpMates, Inc. to that position. The emergency order was effective for only thirty (30) days under [20] Pa. C.S.[A.] Section 5513." Orphans' Ct. Op. at 1 (not paginated); see also Order, 11/8/16. The order would expire on December 7, 2016.

On November 16, 2016, Hospital filed a petition for appointment of a permanent guardian for Steele. The petition claimed that permanent guardianship was required because Steele, among other things, was unable to make informed decisions regarding her medical care and finances. Hospital's Pet. for Appointment of Guardian of Person and Estate of Steele, 11/16/16, at ¶ 7. Later that same day, a hearing on this petition was scheduled for November 29, 2016. Order, 11/16/16. According to a certificate of service filed on November 23, 2016, Steele was served with the petition for appointment of a permanent guardian on November 21, 2016. Certificate of Serv., 11/23/16.

On November 29, 2016, Hospital filed a new petition for appointment of an emergency guardian, and, later that same day, the orphans' court issued an order changing the subject of the hearing scheduled for that day from Hospital's petition for a permanent guardian to the re-appointment of an emergency guardian. At the conclusion of the November 29 hearing, the orphans' court again appointed HelpMates, Inc., as Steele's emergency guardian. The court rescheduled the hearing on Hospital's petition for appointment of a permanent guardian for December 21, 2016.

On November 30, 2016, Hospital filed an amended petition for appointment of a permanent guardian. This petition was served on Steele that same day, according to a certificate of service filed on December 5, 2016.

On December 14, 2016, Steele filed a Request for a Hearing Before a Jury and an Independent Evaluation Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511.1 Steele's petition acknowledged that a hearing was scheduled for December 21, 2016 and requested a jury trial. Steele's Request, 12/14/16. Steele requested an independent medical evaluation because she believed that (1) her medication "left her in a state of lethargy, numbed mental awareness, sleepiness, and has caused problems with her mobility," and (2) her doctors had refused to recognize that she could act without a guardian. Id.

On December 16, 2016, the orphans' court denied Steele's request for a hearing before a jury, "notice not having been submitted to the Court prior to ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing on December 21, 2016 in accordance with 20 Pa.C.S. 777."2 Order, 12/16/15 (dated December 15, 2015).

On December 21, 2016, the hearing on the petition for appointment of a permanent guardian was continued to January 9, 2017. N.T., 12/21/16, at 30. On December 28, 2016, Steele again requested a hearing before a jury. On January 5, 2017, the orphans' court again denied this request. Order, 1/5/17 (dated 1/3/17).

On January 6, 2017, Steele filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that a "Petition for Appointment of Guardian of Person and Estate was filed on December 21, 2016 and the Court personally served Ms. Steele said ... Petition." Steele's Mot. for Reconsideration, 1/6/17, at ¶ 9. On January 9, 2017, Hospital filed a response in opposition to Steele's request for a hearing before a jury. In an order dated January 9, 2017, and docketed on January 10, 2017, the orphans' court granted reconsideration: "it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that said request is GRANTED, Ms. Steele's right to a trial by jury shall be reinstated." Order, 1/10/17.

Meanwhile, also on January 9, 2017, a non-jury hearing was held on the petition for appointment of a permanent guardian, and the orphans' court declared Steele to be incapacitated and appointed a permanent guardian of her person and estate. N.T., 1/9/17, at 177. On January 10, 2017, the orphans' court entered a written order finding that Steele "is in need of a permanent guardian," that "a failure to make such an appointment will result in irreparable harm to her person and estate," and appointing HelpMates, Inc., as permanent guardian of her person and estate. Order, 1/10/17.

On January 25, 2017, the orphans' court issued the following sua sponte order:

AND NOW this 24th day of January, 2017, the Court has examined the complete record of the above matter and determined that this Court's Order of January 9, 2017 [docketed on January 10, 2017] was in error. Said Order was based upon an allegation in the Motion For Reconsideration that the Petition For Appointment of Guardian of Person and Estate before the Court was filed on December 21, 2016. A review of the record reveals that there was no new Petition filed in December. The Petition that is now before the Court was filed on November 30, 2016. The first hearing on the Petition now before the Court was scheduled for December 21, 2016. The Request For a Hearing Before a Jury was filed on December 14, 2016, less than ten days prior to the "initial hearing" scheduled on the Petition. No new Petition was filed on December 21, 2016 but only an Order and Citation scheduling a second hearing date of January 9, 2017. The statute, 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 777(d) requires notice ten days prior to the "initial hearing".
THEREFORE, this Court's Order of January 9, 2017 is VACATED; and its Order of December 15, 2016 is REINSTATED.

Order, 1/25/17 (dated 1/24/17). The court's order did not disturb its prior January 5, 2017 order denying Steele's prior request for a hearing before a jury.

On February 7, 2017, Steele filed an appeal with this Court "from the Orders entered in this matter on December 1[6], 2016, January [5], 2017, January 10, 2017, and January 2[5], 2017." Notice of Appeal, 2/7/17.

On March 30, 2017, in its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the orphans' court stated: "The appeal of the orders of December 1[6], 2016 and January [5], 2017 was not timely filed within thirty (30) days as required by Pa.R.A.P. 341 and were interlocutory and did not fall under the exceptions of Pa.R.A.P. 311 et. seq. " Orphans' Ct. Op. at 1.

Steele now presents the following issue for our review:

Did the [orphans'] court err in denying Ms. Steele, an alleged incapacitated person, the right to have a jury determine the issue of capacity, where Ms. Steele filed a written Request for a Hearing Before a Jury twelve days before the hearing on the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of Person and Estate?

Steele's Brief at 9.

Timeliness of Appeal

Before addressing the merits of Steele's claim, we must determine whether this matter is properly before us. Pennsylvania law makes clear that:

[A]n appeal may be taken from: (1) a final order or an order certified as a final order ( Pa.R.A.P. 341 ); (2) an interlocutory order as of right ( Pa.R.A.P. 311 ); (3) an interlocutory order by permission ( Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b) ); or (4) a collateral order ( Pa.R.A.P. 313 ).
A final order is one that disposes of all the parties and all the claims ... or is entered as a final order pursuant to the trial court's determination. [T]he appealability of an order goes directly to the jurisdiction of the Court asked to review the order.

Veloric v. Doe , 123 A.3d 781, 784 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoted citation and quotation marks omitted).

The sole claim in this action—whether a guardian should be appointed for Steele's person and estate—was not decided until January 10, 2017. This order addressed all outstanding claims for all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a), 342(a)(5). Steele filed her notice of appeal on February 7, 2017, and thus it is timely. The orphans' court's orders of December 16, 2016, and January 5 2017, which both denied Steele's request for a jury hearing, did not resolve Hospital's claims. We acknowledge that the court sua sponte filed a January 25, 2017 order reversing its position that Steele was entitled to a jury. But the court never vacated or reversed its January 5, 2017 order denying Steele's request for a jury. Hence, Steele may still properly appeal that ruling, as it preceded the court's January 10th final order. A party needs to file only a single notice of appeal to secure review of prior non-final orders that are made final by the entry of a final order. See K.H. v. J.R. , 826 A.2d 863, 870–71 (Pa. 2003) (following trial); Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC , 615 Pa. 504, 44 A.3d 27, 54 (2012) (summary judgment). Accordingly, we consider the merits of Steele's appeal.

Timeliness of Request for a Jury Trial

Steele claims the trial court misinterpreted Section 777...

2 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2017
Commonwealth v. Magee
"..."
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2020
Commonwealth v. Stillman
"... ... (b) When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921. As a general rule, the best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of a statute. In re Steele , 177 A.3d 328, 333 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and some citations omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas C. Branca, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2017
Commonwealth v. Magee
"..."
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2020
Commonwealth v. Stillman
"... ... (b) When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921. As a general rule, the best indication of legislative intent is the plain language of a statute. In re Steele , 177 A.3d 328, 333 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and some citations omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas C. Branca, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex