Title: In re Guardianship of Santrucek

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St.3d 67, 2008-Ohio-4915.] 
 
 
 
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF SANTRUCEK. 
[Cite as In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 
 120 Ohio St.3d 67, 2008-Ohio-4915.] 
R.C. Chapter 2111 — A person who did not file an application to be appointed 
guardian and who was not otherwise made a party to the guardianship 
proceeding has no standing to appeal the probate court’s ruling. 
(No. 2007-1545 – Submitted May 20, 2008 – Decided October 2, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County,  
No. 06CA130, 2007-Ohio-3427. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A person who has not filed an application to be appointed guardian, or who 
otherwise has not been made a party to the guardianship proceedings, has 
no standing to appeal. 
__________________ 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} In this case involving a guardianship pursuant to R.C. Chapter 
2111, we are asked to determine whether a person who has not filed an 
application to be appointed guardian, or who otherwise has not been made a party 
to the guardianship proceedings, has standing to appeal.  We hold that she does 
not. 
Case History 
{¶ 2} Bessie Santrucek resided in Elsie, Michigan, most of her life.  She 
has two daughters: appellee, Victoria Wellington, an Ohio resident, and appellant, 
Jennie Hull, an Arizona resident.  In 2005, appellee visited her mother in 
Michigan and became concerned about her behavior.  She noticed that her mother 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
was very forgetful and had trouble keeping her financial papers in order.  Because 
of these concerns, in April 2006, appellee  moved her mother, then 96 years old, 
to the Alterra Sterling House, an assisted-living facility in Newark, Ohio.  After 
this move, appellee filed an application in the Licking County Court of Common 
Pleas to be named guardian of her mother’s person.1  Later she also filed a motion 
to be named guardian of her mother’s estate and requested that appellant, her 
sister, Jennie, be kept informed of the proceedings. 
{¶ 3} When appellant heard of the legal action, she filed a prehearing 
motion challenging the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that her 
mother’s move to Ohio was involuntary.  The trial court ruled that jurisdiction and 
venue were proper in Licking County.  On appeal the Fifth District held that 
appellant lacked standing and dismissed her appeal. 
{¶ 4} Appellant states that she did not apply to be named her mother’s 
guardian in Ohio because the Ohio Revised Code does not permit Ohio 
nonresidents to be named guardians. See R.C. 2111.02 and 2109.21. She did 
however file a petition for appointment of a conservator in the probate court of 
Clinton County, Michigan.  Under Michigan law, a conservator is responsible for 
management of a 
ward’s 
property 
and 
other 
financial 
assets. 
See 
Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 700.5401. In this respect, a conservator is similar to a 
guardian of an estate in Ohio. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 5} It is a fundamental rule that an appeal may generally be instituted 
only by “parties who are able to demonstrate a present interest in the subject 
matter of the litigation which has been prejudiced by the judgment of the lower 
court.” Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar’s Sahara, Inc. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 
                                                 
1.  The Revised Code provides that guardianships may be created over the person, estate, or both. 
A guardian of the person is responsible for the care and well-being of the ward, whereas a 
guardian of the estate is responsible for the management of the ward’s property. See R.C. 2111.06, 
2111.13, and 2111.14.  
January Term, 2008 
3 
591 N.E.2d 1203.  Because guardianship proceedings are not adversarial, but are 
in rem proceedings involving only the probate court and the ward, the 
requirements for standing to appeal are more elaborate. See In re Guardianship of 
Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 48 O.O.2d 107, 249 N.E.2d 794.  To have 
standing in an appeal from a guardianship order, parties must either have an 
interest adverse to the ward’s or have otherwise been aggrieved in some manner 
by the order. Id. at 115-116 (finding no standing for a guardian to appeal a 
determination that her ward had been restored to competency).  Appellant was 
required to be a party to the litigation and to have had an interest that was 
prejudiced by the decision of the probate court before she could  have standing to 
appeal in this case. 
{¶ 6} The Fifth District Court of Appeals held that because appellant did 
not apply to be her mother’s guardian, she did not possess the necessary interest 
in the guardianship proceedings to have standing to appeal.  In so holding, the 
court of appeals relied in part on the Second District’s decision in In re 
Guardianship of Lee, 2d Dist. No. 02CA3, 2002-Ohio-6194, which held that 
Lee’s nephew, who had failed to file an application to be appointed guardian, did 
not have standing to challenge the appointment of someone else as guardian. 
{¶ 7} Appellant attempts to distinguish her situation from that of the 
nephew in Lee by pointing out that as a nonresident of Ohio she was ineligible to 
apply to be guardian.  Also, rather than challenging who had been appointed 
guardian, appellant sought to contest only the probate court’s jurisdiction to 
appoint a guardian for her mother.  Lee, however, stands for the proposition that a 
person claiming an interest in a guardianship proceeding must take the necessary 
procedural steps to protect that claimed interest.  Appellant did not do so. 
{¶ 8} Appellant argues that because she was ineligible to be named her 
mother’s guardian in Ohio she will have been denied any opportunity to challenge 
the probate court’s jurisdiction if she is found to lack standing. She is mistaken. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Even though as a nonresident she was prevented from applying to be her mother’s 
guardian, other avenues for becoming a party to the proceedings and challenging 
the jurisdiction of the court were available.  The record shows that appellant 
sought to challenge the probate court’s jurisdiction at the early stages of the 
guardianship proceedings but was never made a party to those proceedings.  She 
did not become a party to the action simply by virtue of the relationship with her 
mother; she was required to take affirmative action to become a party.  If 
appellant had been an Ohio resident, as her mother’s next of kin she would have 
been entitled to notice of the guardianship proceeding pursuant to R.C. 
2111.04(A)(2).  But such notice merely apprises relatives of the pendency of the 
action and does not confer party status upon them.  Appellee’s motion requesting 
that appellant receive notice and be kept informed of the status of the proceedings 
is similar; it recognizes that appellant has an interest in the welfare of her mother, 
but is insufficient to give her standing as a party to the action. 
{¶ 9} Appellant filed a notice of representation with the Licking County 
Probate Court, followed by a motion that challenged the probate court’s 
jurisdiction. As a daughter, appellant certainly has an interest in the outcome of 
the guardianship proceedings, but nonparties are limited in the types of motions 
they may file.  At the appellate level, the rules are similar, and App.R. 4(A) 
permits appeals only by parties to the case.  Because she was not a party, the 
motion when filed was not proper. 
{¶ 10} While appellant was precluded by statute from being named a 
guardian of her mother in Ohio, there were other means for her to have been made 
a party.  She could have filed a motion to intervene under Civ.R. 24, and would 
have been permitted to intervene in the guardianship case if she could have shown 
she had an “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the 
action and [she] is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical 
matter impair or impede [her] ability to protect that interest, unless [her] interest is 
January Term, 2008 
5 
adequately represented by existing parties.” Civ.R. 24(A)(2).  Although she 
claimed an interest in the proceedings, appellant did not file a motion to intervene 
to protect that interest. 
{¶ 11} The rules for intervention allow courts to maintain control of 
proceedings and permit parties to participate only when they have an actual 
interest in the guardianship proceedings. The creation of a guardianship is a 
significant event, and family, friends, or even concerned neighbors could all 
potentially be affected by the outcome of a guardianship proceeding. Not all such 
persons will have a legally sufficient interest to allow them to become parties to 
the proceedings, however. 
{¶ 12} Moreover, intervenors have standing only to the extent necessary 
to protect the interest that justifies the intervention.  This restriction on standing is 
particularly relevant in the context of an in rem guardianship proceeding, which, 
at its basic level, involves the court and the ward or potential ward and inherently 
limits any interest or standing of a third party. See Love, 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 48 
O.O.2d 107, 249 N.E.2d 794.  Although she could not be named personal 
guardian of her mother in Ohio, appellant did file a motion in a Michigan court 
asking to be named conservator of her mother’s property. If appellant had sought 
and been granted participation through intervention in this case, her participation 
would have been limited to challenging the court’s jurisdiction in Ohio and to 
protecting her interest in being named conservator in Michigan.  She would not 
have been able to challenge the court’s appointment of her sister as guardian. 
{¶ 13} We therefore hold that a person who has not filed an application to 
be appointed guardian, or who otherwise has not been made a party to the 
guardianship proceedings, has no standing to appeal. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 14} A person seeking to appeal the decision of a probate court in a 
guardianship proceeding must have been a party to those proceedings to have 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
standing to appeal the probate court’s decision.  Being related to the alleged 
incompetent is not enough to confer party status upon a person, nor is being 
served with notice of the proceedings. Additional action is required to become a 
party with the right to appeal.  Filing an application to be appointed guardian is 
one avenue to becoming a party, but a person may also file a motion to intervene 
pursuant to Civ.R. 24. 
{¶ 15} While we recognize that appellant took steps to protect her claimed 
interest by challenging the jurisdiction of the court early in the proceedings, she 
did not follow the proper procedure for becoming a party to the case.  Thus, 
because she was never a party, she lacks standing to appeal the decision of the 
probate court.  We affirm the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, and CUPP, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 16} The majority opinion relies extensively on In re Guardianship of 
Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 48 O.O.2d 107, 249 N.E.2d 794, to conclude that 
Jennie Hull has no standing to appeal.  In Love, a guardian was prevented from 
challenging the termination of her guardianship.  Hull is not the guardian of her 
mother.  She is also not challenging the termination of a guardianship.  She is 
attempting to challenge the creation of a guardianship that she contends the court 
did not have jurisdiction to create.  These differences show that Love is not 
dispositive in this case. 
{¶ 17} The majority opinion states that Love stands for the proposition 
that “[t]o have standing in an appeal from a guardianship order, parties must 
either have an interest adverse to the ward’s or have otherwise been aggrieved in 
some manner by the order.”  The majority opinion does not explain why its 
January Term, 2008 
7 
interpretation of Love is so much more restrictive than this court’s interpretation 
of Love in 1982, when it stated, “This court has long recognized that, in 
construing the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the law favors and protects the right 
of appeal and that a liberal construction of the rules is required in order to 
promote the objects of the Appellate Procedure Act and to assist the parties in 
obtaining justice.  In re Guardianship of Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 115, 
249 N.E.2d 794.”  Maritime Mfrs., Inc. v. Hi-Skipper Marina (1982), 70 Ohio 
St.2d 257, 258, 24 O.O.3d 344, 436 N.E.2d 1034.  “All through the centuries, in 
the growth of the systems of common law and equity, the great threat has been 
that the procedural rules have, from time to time, become so complicated and 
technical that they have operated to delay substantive justice, to ensnare and 
entrap the unwary and to defeat the real purposes for which they were supposed to 
have been provided.”  In re Guardianship of Wisner (1947), 148 Ohio St. 31, 34, 
34 O.O. 558, 72 N.E.2d 751. 
{¶ 18} According to the laws of Ohio, Hull cannot become the guardian of 
her mother, because she lives out of state.  R.C. 2111.02 and 2109.21.  This court 
cannot change that fact, but we can change the unjust results that flow from it, and 
we should because we are required to liberally construe the appellate rules “to 
assist the parties in obtaining justice.”  Maritime Mfrs., Inc., 70 Ohio St.2d at 258, 
24 O.O.3d 344, 436 N.E.2d 1034.  In Maritime Mfrs., Inc., we also stated that 
“this court has consistently adhered to the policy of exercising all proper means to 
prevent the loss of valuable rights when the validity of a notice of appeal is 
challenged solely on technical, procedural grounds.”  Id. at 258-259.  I recognize 
that Hull was not a party in the proceedings below.  But appellate standing is a 
matter of judicial policy in Ohio, and we should recognize the party status of a 
person who acted as if she were a party and who was treated as if she were a party 
throughout the proceedings. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 19} Hull also did not file a motion to intervene; it is unclear why she 
failed to do so, because the issue was not addressed in the briefs or at oral 
argument.  But Hull challenged the jurisdiction of the probate court early in the 
proceedings and defended her position vigorously throughout the proceedings.  
The probate court treated Hull as if she were a party by calling her a movant, 
allowing her attorney to examine witnesses, and telling her attorney, “[Y]ou can 
decide to appeal whatever adverse rulings that this Court may possibly issue now 
or in the future.”  The court treated Hull as if she had intervened, and so should 
we. 
{¶ 20} One federal circuit court allows appeals by nonparties often 
enough to have developed a three-part test to determine whether a nonparty may 
appeal.  Secs. & Exchange Comm. v. Forex Asset Mgt., L.L.C. (C.A.5, 2001), 242 
F.3d 325, 329.  Another federal circuit court considers appeals by nonparties 
when (1) the party participated in the proceedings below and (2) the equities favor 
hearing the appeal.  Secs. & Exchange Comm. v. Wencke (C.A.9, 1986), 783 F.2d 
829, 834-835.  “ ‘[A]ppeals by those who participated as if parties are frequently 
entertained despite a failure to achieve formal status as a party.’  15A Wright, 
Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure:  Jurisdiction and Related 
Matters § 3902.1 (2d ed. 1992).”  In re Orshansky (D.C.App.2002), 804 A.2d 
1077, 1090.  Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has stated, “We have 
never * * * restricted the right to appeal to named parties to the litigation.”  
Devlin v. Scardelletti (2002), 536 U.S. 1, 7, 122 S.Ct. 2005, 153 L.Ed.2d 27. 
{¶ 21} The very nature of the proceedings in this case militates for a 
liberal construction of the rules governing appeal.  This case does not involve one 
party battling with another party.  In that situation, it makes good sense to tightly 
restrict the ability of nonparties to appeal a judgment.  This case involves only 
one party, a ward who has been adjudged incapable of managing her own affairs.  
An attorney, who was not the guardian ad litem, appeared at the proceedings 
January Term, 2008 
9 
below representing the ward and stated that his client had “indicated that she 
would prefer to return to the State of Michigan and that she would prefer to have 
her daughter Jennie [Hull] handle her finances rather than the other daughter.”  In 
this case, we should exercise liberality in allowing a nonparty to appeal the 
decision of the probate court.  
 
{¶ 22} It is unjust and inequitable to prevent Hull from challenging the 
lower court proceedings.  She is concerned that her 96-year-old mother was 
removed from her home in Michigan and is being forced to live out the rest of her 
days in a strange location.  Anyone with an elderly parent can imagine the pain of 
seeing that parent held against her will; I consider Hull to be aggrieved by the 
lower court decision.  Even the majority concedes that Hull “certainly has an 
interest in the outcome of the guardianship proceedings.” 
{¶ 23} Furthermore, in this case, the current resolution prevents a case 
filed in Michigan from proceeding.  At a minimum we should reverse the 
judgment and remand the cause with instructions for the lower court to await the 
resolution of Hull’s action for conservatorship in Michigan.  If Bessie Santrucek 
was removed from Michigan involuntarily, her residence is in Michigan, see State 
ex rel. Florence v. Zitter, 106 Ohio St.3d 87, 2005-Ohio-3804, 831 N.E.2d 1003, 
at ¶ 25, where any competent person can be a guardian, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 
700.5313. 
{¶ 24} One of the problems highlighted by this case is the incentive an 
Ohio resident has to move her parent to Ohio to prevent her non-Ohio-resident 
sibling from being eligible to serve as guardian.  We should not wait for the 
General Assembly to address this problem.  Our legal system should help resolve 
family conflict, not provide a ready avenue to exacerbate it. 
{¶ 25} The principles of equity and justice cry out for us to reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  I dissent. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
__________________ 
 
CUPP, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 26} I respectfully dissent because I believe that under the unusual 
circumstances of this case, Hull should be permitted to appeal the probate court’s 
judgment that the probate court had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for 
Santrucek, Hull’s mother. 
{¶ 27} The dispute before the probate court concerned whether Hull’s 
mother voluntarily left Michigan and became a resident of Ohio, whether she left 
Michigan involuntarily, or whether she intended to leave Michigan only 
temporarily. R.C. 2111.02(A) provides that an Ohio county probate court has 
jurisdiction if the ward “is a resident of the [Ohio] county or has a legal settlement 
in the county.” If the Ohio probate court did not have jurisdiction, then Hull could 
continue to seek appointment as her mother’s conservator in Michigan. If the 
Ohio probate court had jurisdiction, Hull, who is not a resident  of Ohio, would be 
ineligible for appointment in Ohio, and the Ohio proceedings would prevent her 
from being appointed conservator by a Michigan court. R.C. 2109.21(C) (with 
certain exceptions, guardians must be residents of the Ohio county where the 
ward resides); In re Clendenning (1945), 145 Ohio St. 82, 30 O.O. 301, 60 N.E.2d 
676, paragraph two of the syllabus (guardianship judgment “binds all the world”). 
{¶ 28} Consequently, in my judgment, Hull had a sufficient interest in 
contesting the jurisdiction of the Ohio probate court—namely, her interest in 
being named her mother’s conservator in Michigan. However, while Hull 
participated in the proceedings before the probate court, she did not move to 
intervene as a party in those proceedings. 
{¶ 29} I agree with the majority that ordinarily, a person in Hull’s 
position, i.e., a person who seeks to contest a probate court’s jurisdiction to 
proceed, should seek to intervene as a party. However, in this case, the probate 
court allowed Hull to present evidence at the guardianship-appointment hearing, 
January Term, 2008 
11 
allowed her lawyer to examine witnesses at that hearing, and even told her 
attorney that Hull “can decide to appeal whatever adverse rulings that this Court 
may possibly issue now or in the future.” Under these unique circumstances, I 
believe that Hull should be allowed to appeal the decision of the probate court 
concerning its jurisdiction in this case. 
{¶ 30} For these reasons, I dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Vorys, Sater Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., William G. Porter II, and Michael 
J. Hendershot; and Paul D. Harmon, for appellant. 
 
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., and Kevin R. McDermott; and 
William Douglas Lowe and Russell Suskind, for appellee. 
______________________