[Cite as In re Guardianship of Rosenberger, 2018-Ohio-3533.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

IN THE MATTER OF: : OPINION ON 

 RECONSIDERATION 

THE GUARDIANSHIP OF : 

NORMA ROSENBERGER, 

AN INCOMPETENT ADULT : CASE NO. 2017-L-120

Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case 

No. 2016 GU 0212. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

John Patrick Malone, Jr. and Andrew Roger Malone, Malone Law, LLC, 614 West 

Superior Avenue, Suite 1150, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Appellant-Intervenor, 

Northwest Trustee & Management Services, LLC). 

Patricia J. Schraff and John P. Thomas, Schraff Thomas Law, LLC, 2802 S.O.M. 

Center Road, Suite 200, Willoughby Hills, OH 44094 (For Appellee, Norma 

Rosenberger). 

Glenn E. Forbes, Forbes Law LLC, 166 Main Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For 

Appellee, Susan Doudican).

ON RECONSIDERATION1

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Northwest Trustee & Management Services, LLC, appeals the 

denial of its Motion to Intervene in the guardianship proceedings of Norma 

Rosenberger. The issues before this court are whether a party nominated as the 

 

1 The Original announcement of the decision, In the Matter of: The Guardianship of Norma Rosenberger, 

11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-120, 2018-Ohio-2076, released May 29, 2018, is hereby vacated. This 

Opinion, issued upon reconsideration, is the court’s journalized decision in this appeal. See App.R. 

26(A)(1). 
 2

guardian for a prospective ward is entitled to intervene in the guardianship proceedings 

when the nomination has been imperfectly executed under Ohio law and whether a 

power of attorney is entitled to intervene when it did not receive notice of the hearing on 

an application to appoint a guardian for the principal. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the decision of the court below. 

{¶2} On November 16, 2016, Susan Doudican filed an Application for 

Appointment of Guardian of Alleged Incompetent [R.C. 2111.03] on behalf of her halfsister, Norma Rosenberger, in the Lake County Probate Court. 

{¶3} On December 16, 2016, a hearing was held on the Application before a 

probate court magistrate at which Rosenberger and Doudican gave testimony. 

{¶4} On January 5, 2017, a Magistrate’s Decision was issued finding, “by clear 

and convincing evidence that Norma Rosenberger is mentally impaired as a result of 

various mental and physical disabilities, and incapable of independently caring for her 

person and safeguarding her income and assets.” The magistrate recommended 

Doudican “be appointed the guardian of the person and the estate of Norma 

Rosenberger for an indefinite period of time.” The magistrate based her findings on the 

following testimony: 

Ms. Rosenberger is an 84-year old woman diagnosed with 

mixed dementia according to the Statement of Expert Evaluation 

completed on October 14, 2016 by Dr. Ami Hall and filed with the 

Application on November 16, 2016. Dr. Hall noted impairments in 

Ms. Rosenberger’s orientation, thought process, memory, 

concentration and comprehension, and judgment. She found Ms. 

Rosenberger mentally impaired and recommended the 

guardianship be established. * * * 

Ms. Rosenberger moved to Mentor, Ohio from Spokane, 

Washington in August 2016. Ms. Rosenberger was living alone in 

Spokane prior to her move to Ohio, but Mrs. Doudican stated 
 3

during the hearing that she and Ms. Rosenberger visited with each 

other annually in person and maintained regular telephone contact. 

In approximately November 2015, Mrs. Doudican noticed Ms. 

Rosenberger was repeating herself during telephone 

conversation[s] and learned Ms. Rosenberger was getting lost while 

driving. On or about March 2016, Mrs. Doudican offered and Ms. 

Rosenberger agreed to move to Ohio to be closer to Mrs. Doudican 

and her family which consists of adult children and younger 

grandchildren. Mrs. Doudican began to make arrangements for 

Ms. Rosenberger’s move to Ohio, finding her an apartment at 

Parker Place in Mentor, Ohio. 

However, during the process of arranging further Ms. 

Rosenberger’s move to Ohio, Mrs. Doudican learned that Ms. 

Rosenberger engaged Northwest Trustee and Management 

Service, a trust and financial arrangement company located in 

Spokane, sometime in April 2016. According to a letter written to 

Mrs. Doudican by Cam McGillivray who is a Trust Officer and Inhouse Counsel for Northwest, Ms. Rosenberger named Northwest 

as agent under a durable general power of attorney agreement she 

executed on May 16, 2016 replacing Mrs. Doudican as agent in a 

previously executed agreement. Northwest has charged Ms. 

Rosenberger nearly $40,000 in account maintenance fees since 

April 5, 2016, for approximately $1,100,000 under its management. 

Mrs. Doudican explained that Ms. Rosenberger’s funds are actually 

invested with Ameriprise, and suspects Ameriprise is also taking 

investment fees/commissions for its services. 

{¶5} On January 9, 2017, the probate court adopted the Magistrate’s Decision 

and appointed Doudican guardian of Rosenberger’s person and estate. 

{¶6} On February 9, 2017, Northwest Trustee filed a Motion to Intervene on the 

following grounds: “the Ward herein, Norma Rosenberger, in her Financial Durable 

Power of Attorney executed on May 12, 2016, named Northwest Trustee as an Agent, 

and instructed that any court that received or acted upon a guardianship application was 

to deny such application so long as the Agent (Northwest Trustee) was acting under the 

Power of Attorney”; “Northwest Trustee is * * * an interested party, necessary for the 

adjudication of the rights of all persons with an interest in the property before the Court 
 4

in the instant Guardianship”; and “Northwest Trustee did not receive due process notice 

of the Guardianship application or the evidentiary Hearing, and was deprived of the 

opportunity to assert its property rights.” 

{¶7} On March 17, 2017, Doudican filed a Response to the Motion to Intervene. 

{¶8} On August 29, 2017, the probate court denied Northwest Trustee’s Motion 

to Intervene. 

{¶9} On September 27, 2017, Northwest Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal. On 

appeal, it raises the following assignments of error: 

{¶10} “[1.] The Probate Court erred when it denied the Motion to Intervene filed 

by Northwest Trustee, an Interested Party which was nominated as Fiduciary and 

Guardian in Norma Rosenberger’s Durable Power of Attorney.” 

{¶11} “[2.] Whether the Probate Court erred in denying the Motion to Intervene 

when Northwest Trustee did not receive Due Process Notice of the Guardianship 

Application and Hearing, and was thus Denied an opportunity to submit to the Court’s 

consideration the rights and obligations of the Principal-Agent relationship created by 

Ms. Rosenberger in her Durable Power of Attorney?” 

{¶12} “Guardianship proceedings, including the removal of a guardian, are not 

adversarial but rather are in rem proceedings involving only the probate court and the 

ward.” In re Guardianship of Spangler, 126 Ohio St.3d 339, 2010-Ohio-2471, 933 

N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 53; Shroyer v. Richmond, 16 Ohio St. 455, 465 (1866) (“[p]roceedings 

for the appointment of guardians, are not inter partes, or adversary in their character,” 

but, rather, “are properly proceedings in rem”). “At all times, the probate court is the 

superior guardian of wards who are subject to its jurisdiction, and all guardians who are 
 5

subject to the jurisdiction of the court shall obey all orders of the court that concern their 

wards or guardianships.” R.C. 2111.50(A)(1). “Because the probate court is the 

superior guardian, the appointed guardian is simply an officer of the court subject to the 

court’s control, direction, and supervision,” and, “therefore, has no personal interest in 

his or her appointment or removal.” Spangler at ¶ 53. 

{¶13} The probate court’s decisions in guardianship proceedings are generally 

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Estate of Luoma, 11th Dist. Lake 

No. 2011-L-006, 2011-Ohio-4701, ¶ 20; In re Guardianship of Bakhtiar, 9th Dist. Lorain 

No. 16CA011029, 2017-Ohio-8617, ¶ 8. Concomitantly, “[t]he standard of review for a 

motion to intervene is abuse of discretion.” State ex rel. N.G. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 

Common Pleas, 147 Ohio St.3d 432, 2016-Ohio-1519, 67 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 21. 

{¶14} In its first assignment of error, Northwest Trustee asserts the probate court 

erred by denying its Motion to Intervene. As grounds for intervention, Northwest 

Trustee argues that “the Durable Power of Attorney in fact nominated and appointed

Northwest Trustee to serve as guardian in the event a court found a guardianship 

necessary,” and, therefore, “[i]t was error for the Probate court to deny Northwest 

Trustee’s Motion to Intervene as an interested party which had been nominated as 

guardian.” Appellant’s brief at 5. 

{¶15} Northwest Trustee relies upon the Financial Durable Power of Attorney 

(referenced in the Magistrate’s Decision) executed by Rosenberger on May 16, 2016, 

which provides in relevant part: 

It is Principal’s intention by executing this Power of Attorney to 

provide for the administration of Principal’s affairs without the 

necessity of court action or the appointment of a representative 

payee. Principal requests in the strongest possible terms that any 
 6

court or government agency that may receive or act upon a petition 

to appoint a guardian, conservator, or representative payee should 

deny such petition so long as Agent is acting under this Power of 

Attorney. If any court or government agency should deem it 

necessary to appoint a fiduciary (including a guardian, conservator, 

or representative payee) in spite of this request, then Principal 

nominates and appoints Agent to serve, and requests Agent be 

given priority for appointment. 

{¶16} Relative to a prospective ward’s capacity to nominate his or her guardian, 

the Revised Code provides: 

(A) A person may nominate in a writing, as described in this 

division, another person to be the guardian of the nominator’s 

person, estate, or both * * *, subject to notice and a hearing 

pursuant to section 2111.02 of the Revised Code. The nomination 

is for consideration by a court if proceedings for the appointment of 

a guardian of the person, the estate, or both, for the person making 

the nomination * * * are commenced at a later time. * * * 

(B) A person’s nomination, in a writing as described in division 

(A) of this section, of a guardian of the nominator’s person, estate, 

or both * * * is revoked by the person’s subsequent nomination, in a 

writing as described in division (A) of this section, of a guardian of 

the nominator’s person, estate, or both * * *, and, except for good 

cause shown or disqualification, the court shall make its 

appointment in accordance with the person’s most recent 

nomination. * * * 

R.C. 2111.121; also R.C. 1337.28(A) (“[i]n a power of attorney, a principal may 

nominate a guardian of the principal’s person, estate, or both * * * for consideration by a 

court if proceedings for the appointment of a guardian for the principal’s person, estate, 

or both * * * are commenced at a later time”); R.C. 2111.10 (“[a]ny appointment of a 

corporation as guardian shall apply to the estate only and not to the person”). 

{¶17} In the present case, Rosenberger had nominated Northwest Trustee as 

her guardian in a validly executed Durable Power of Attorney. At the December 16, 

2016 hearing on the Application for Guardianship, the magistrate conducting the 
 7

hearing was apprised of the existence of the Power of Attorney, although the document 

itself does not appear to have been entered into evidence nor were its substantive 

provisions considered. 2 It was attached to Northwest Trustee’s Motion to Intervene as 

evidence of Rosenberger’s intent that “any court considering an application for Guardian 

(of the estate) should deny the same, and appoint Northwest Trustee to continue to 

serve as her financial Agent.” 

{¶18} The law is clear that a probate court, while not bound by a party’s 

nomination of a guardian, must at least consider the nomination. In re Guardianship of 

MacHaney, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22088, 2004-Ohio-5956, ¶ 15 (“the probate court 

abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the guardianship appointment of Joseph and in 

failing to consider Willie Mae’s durable power of attorney in which she nominates 

Nathanial as her prospective guardian”); In re Medsker, 66 Ohio App.3d 219, 223, 583 

N.E.2d 1091 (“the probate court was required to consider Papay’s nomination” and 

“erred in selecting Daniel Medsker as guardian and in failing to consider Papay for this 

position”). 

{¶19} Rosenberger’s nomination of Northwest Trustee as guardian, however, 

was not the basis on which it sought to intervene in the guardianship proceedings nor 

was such appointment requested. In its proposed objections to the guardianship, 

Northwest Trustee asserted that it “has no objection to Susan Doudican serving as the 

Guardian of the Person for Norma Rosenberger.” Rather, it claimed that intervention 

 

2. No awareness that Northwest Trustee had been nominated as guardian is evident from the record nor 

is it certain that a copy of the Durable Power of Attorney was given to the magistrate. Counsel for 

Rosenberger offered a copy to the magistrate which was declined: “I don’t think so. If the judge, if he 

wants to see it for himself, I’ll contact you, Mr. Forbes, and you can talk to your client, if you’d like to 

release it to the court. I don’t think it’s pertinent, I mean not directly relevant, but okay.” 
 8

was “necessary because it is the only way for intervenor Northwest Trustee to assert its 

property rights which are based in statute and contract.” 

{¶20} Inasmuch as Northwest Trustee disclaimed any interest in asserting its 

nomination as Rosenberger’s guardian, the nomination provision in the May 16, 2016 

Power of Attorney did not require the probate court to grant the Motion to Intervene. As 

explained further below, Northwest Trustee’s ability to participate in the guardianship 

proceedings was not dependent upon it being formally granted the right to intervene. 

Irrespective of the Motion to Intervene, Northwest Trustee continued as Rosenberger’s 

financial power of attorney until August 29, 2017. In these circumstances, the probate 

court did not err by failing to consider Northwest Trustee’s nomination as guardian. 

{¶21} The first assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶22} In the second assignment of error, Northwest Trustee claims it was 

entitled to intervene as “an interested party in any application for a guardianship for 

Norma Rosenberger” with “the right to perform specific acts on behalf of the principal, 

and to receive compensation.” Appellant’s brief at 9. By not receiving notice that 

guardianship proceedings had been instituted, Northwest Trustee’s rights of due 

process were violated. 

{¶23} Northwest Trustee’s argument largely rests on its claim to be an 

“interested party” under R.C. 2111.02(A), providing that “[a]n interested party includes * 

* * a person nominated in a durable power of attorney under section 1337.24 of the 

Revised Code or in a writing as described in division (A) of section 2111.121 of the 

Revised Code.” Northwest Trustee’s status as Rosenberger’s power of attorney at the 

time the Application for Appointment of Guardian was filed is not disputed. Northwest 
 9

Trustee continued to serve as power of attorney after Doudican’s appointment as 

guardian in accord with R.C. 1337.24. 

{¶24} Northwest Trustee’s status as Rosenberger’s power of attorney did not 

entitle it to notice of the hearing on the guardianship application under relevant statute, 

R.C. 2111.04(A)(2)(a)(i) and (b): “In the appointment of the guardian of an incompetent, 

notice shall be served * * * [u]pon the person for whom appointment is sought by 

personal service,” and “[u]pon the next of kin of the person for whom appointment is 

sought who are known to reside in this state.” In re Guardianship of Baker, 5th Dist. 

Fairfield No. 07CA00065, 2008-Ohio-5079, ¶ 38 (“R.C. 2111.04 in unambiguous terms 

requires service of notice of the hearing upon only (1) the proposed ward and (2) the 

next of kin determined by application of the statute of descent and distribution”).3

{¶25} Given that Northwest Trustee was not entitled to notice and that its status 

as power of attorney survived the establishment of the guardianship, we find no abuse 

of discretion in the probate court’s denial of its Motion to Intervene on the grounds that it 

did not receive notice.4

{¶26} We note that, as an interested party, Northwest Trustee was allowed to 

participate in guardianship proceedings even without formal intervention. For example, 

Northwest Trustee was statutorily authorized to motion the probate court to hold a 

hearing on the continued necessity of the guardianship. R.C. 2111.49(C). Even in the 

 

3. We note that the Sixth District, in In re Guardianship of Simmons, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-02-039, 

2003-Ohio-5416, stated that “in order to comply with statutory requirements, the court must provide notice 

to the ward and any interested parties even when sua sponte appointing a guardian.” Id. at ¶ 48. The 

import of this statement clearly contradicts the words of the statute, which the Simmons court quotes in 

the preceding paragraphs. One must either decline to follow Simmons on this point or else construe “any 

interested parties” to mean those parties statutory entitled to notice. 

4. It was not until May 2, 2017, that counsel for Rosenberger moved the probate court to terminate 

Northwest Trustee’s power of attorney. That Motion was served upon Northwest Trustee which duly 

opposed the same. The probate court terminated Northwest Trustee’s power of attorney on August 29, 

2017. 
 10

absence of express statutory authorization, “Ohio courts have recognized that an 

interested person may move for the removal of a guardian under [R.C. 2109.24].” In re 

Guardianship of Constable, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2006-08-058 and CA2006-09-

067, 2007-Ohio-3346, ¶ 8. “In fact, review of Ohio case law reveals no instance in 

which a moving party was found to be uninterested for purposes of participating in a 

guardianship proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 9; Spangler, 126 Ohio St.3d 339, 2010-Ohio-2471, 

933 N.E.2d 1607, at ¶ 58 (even in the absence of “the express or implied power to file a 

motion to remove a guardian, * * * the plenary power of the probate court as the 

superior guardian allows it to investigate whether a guardian should be removed upon 

receipt of sufficient information that the guardian is not acting in the ward’s best 

interest”). The docket of the present case confirms Northwest Trustees unhindered 

ability to engage in motion practice before the probate court. 

{¶27} The second assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶28} For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment Entry of the Lake County 

Probate Court, denying Northwest Trustee’s Motion to Intervene, is affirmed. Costs to 

be taxed against the appellant. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., 

concur.