Title: In re Adult Guardianship of L.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 13 
Docket: 
Ken-19-355 
Submitted  
  On Briefs:  January 23, 2020 
Decided: 
January 30, 2020 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP OF L. 
 
 
JABAR, J. 
[¶1]  L. appeals from an order of the Kennebec County Probate Court 
(Mitchell, J.) determining that L. “failed to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that his [adult] guardianship is no longer necessary for his safety and 
well-being” and denying his petition for termination of that guardianship.  
L. contends, and the Department of Health and Human Services concedes, that 
the court applied an incorrect standard of proof in contravention of 
18-A M.R.S. § 5-307(d) (2018).1   
 
[¶2]  “What party has the burden of proof . . . is a legal question.  Legal 
questions are subject to de novo review.”  Steelstone Indus., Inc. v. McCrum, 
2001 ME 171, ¶ 6, 785 A.2d 1256.  Thus, the court’s application of the law to 
the facts is reviewed de novo.  Estate of Greenblatt, 2014 ME 32, ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 
                                         
1  The citations here are to Title 18-A, the Probate Code in effect at the time of the court’s order.  
The Code has been repealed and replaced with a new Probate Code, codified in Title 18-C, which 
became effective on September 1, 2019.  See P.L. 2019, ch. 417; P.L. 2017, ch. 402. 
 
 
2 
1215.  Section 5-307(d) sets forth the burden of proof applicable to this 
petition for termination of guardianship and provides: 
In an action by the ward, upon presentation by the petitioner of 
evidence establishing a prima facie case that the ward is not 
incapacitated or the appointment is no longer necessary or 
desirable as a means of providing continuing care and supervision 
of the ward, the court shall order the termination unless the 
respondent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the ward 
is incapacitated and guardianship is necessary or desirable as a 
means of providing continuing care and supervision of the ward. 
 
18-A M.R.S. § 5-307(d) (emphasis added).   
 
[¶3]  In stating that “[t]he Petitioner failed to prove by clear and 
convincing evidence that his guardianship is no longer necessary for his safety 
and well-being[,]” the court failed to apply the proper statutory standard of 
proof.  We therefore vacate the judgment and remand to the probate court for 
application of the correct standard of proof.  See Emerson v. Cty. Concrete 
& Const. Co., 614 A.2d 549, 550 (Me. 1992). 
The entry is: 
Judgment vacated.  Remanded for proceedings 
consistent with this opinion.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
Robert Marks, Esq., Washington, for appellant L.  
 
Aaron Frey, Attorney General, and Cody M.P. Hopkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and 
Human Services 
 
 
Kennebec County Probate Court docket number 2008-0172-1 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY