Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Frederick A. Turner

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re:

The Guardianship of Sharon 

Izzo,

Appellant

April 17, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

53A05-1407-GU-320

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin, 

Judge

Cause No. 53C07-1402-GU-12

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 2 of 9

Case Summary1

[1] In the spring and summer of 2013, Indiana Adult Protective Services (“APS”) 

received calls concerning seventy-seven-year-old Appellant Sharon Izzo, calls 

expressing doubt that Izzo was able to make appropriate health care and 

financial decisions. In February of 2014, APS petitioned for the appointment of 

a guardian over Izzo’s person and estate. After a first hearing, the trial court 

appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and temporary guardian. Following a 

second hearing, the trial court found that Izzo suffered from cognitive problems 

and mental illness and that she was not capable of making appropriate personal 

and financial decisions. The trial court appointed a guardian for Izzo’s person 

and estate. On appeal, Izzo contends that APS introduced insufficient evidence 

to sustain the trial court’s judgment. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May and June of 2013, APS received calls regarding Izzo and expressing 

doubts that she could make appropriate health care and financial decisions. On 

June 25, 2013, Physician’s Assistant Vanessa Beard examined Izzo and later 

opined that Izzo was incapacitated at the time and that “[d]ue to cognitive 

problems and mental illness she [was] not able to care for herself without 

 

1

 Oral argument was held in this case on March 26, 2015, at Ivy Tech Community College in 

Lafayette, Indiana. We would like to thank the faculty, staff, and students of Ivy Tech for their 

hospitality and counsel for the high quality of their arguments. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 3 of 9

assistance.” Ex. 1. The report was signed by neurologist Dr. Jamie Bales. On 

July 8, 2013, APS opened an official investigation into Izzo’s situation. 

[3] On December 10, 2013, Dr. Jameson Way examined Izzo and later submitted a 

report, in which he found Izzo incapacitated and diagnosed her with 

schizoaffective disorder and frontal lobe dysfunction. On February 10, 2014, 

APS filed a “verified petition for appointment of guardian over person and 

estate of incapacitated person” regarding Izzo. Appellant’s App. pp. 6-8. On 

March 11, 2014, the trial court held a hearing, after which it appointed Terri 

Francis as GAL and Elizabeth Ruh as temporary guardian for Izzo. On April 

14, 2014, Dr. Way issued another report, in which he stated that he had 

examined Izzo again, still found her to be incompetent, and noted her history of 

schizoaffective disorder, neuropathy, COPD, depression, and urinary 

incontinence. 

[4] On April 21, 2014, GAL Francis filed a report, during the preparation of which 

she interviewed twenty-four persons and reviewed the court file on Izzo’s case. 

Dr. William Schmalz, who was seeing Izzo every four weeks to monitor her 

medications, wrote a letter indicating his belief that Izzo was in need of a 

guardian. Ruh told GAL Francis that she was concerned that Izzo’s daughter 

Elizabeth Izzo was causing Izzo unnecessary stress by micro-managing her 

care. Wendy Scott of APS told GAL Francis that she believed a guardian 

would insulate Izzo from the “family drama[,]” including her son Bill Izzo 

borrowing money from Izzo. Appellant’s App. p. 31. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 4 of 9

[5] Elizabeth and her daughter Michelle White both told GAL Francis that they 

believed Izzo needed a guardian. Elizabeth and White expressed concerns 

about Izzo’s diet, a neighbor that may have stolen pain medication from Izzo, 

Izzo’s ability to properly care for her cat, and their belief that Izzo’s neighbors 

were intoxicated and could not “look in on Mrs. Izzo.” Appellant’s App. p. 31. 

Elizabeth and White believed that Izzo could no longer balance her checkbook 

or handle her financial affairs. 

[6] GAL Francis registered concern that three medical professionals had opined 

that Izzo was in need of a guardian and with the number of allegations that 

family members were too involved in Izzo’s affairs. GAL Francis 

recommended that a guardian be appointed to assist in Izzo’s financial and

personal affairs, noting that “[a] guardianship would allow the children to be 

just that, children to Mrs. Izzo.” Appellant’s App. p. 36. 

[7] On June 10, 2014, the trial court held a second hearing. Ruh opined that Izzo 

was in need of a guardian because she was, at times, unable to recall exactly 

what her doctors had told her and there had been “significant confusion” 

regarding medical issues. Tr. p. 52. Ruh also affirmed that Izzo “could use 

some assistance with her finances and ... some insulation from some aggressive 

family members[.]” Tr. p. 53. GAL Francis testified that she stood by the 

recommendation she made in her April 21, 2014, report that a guardian be 

appointed for Izzo. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 5 of 9

[8] Following the hearing and also on June 11, 2014, the trial court issued an order 

appointing a guardian for Izzo, an order providing in part as follows: 

The Petitioner, Wendy Scott for Unit 10 [APS], appears in 

person and with deputy prosecuting attorney Robert Miller for a 

hearing on the Petition for Guardianship of Sharon Izzo. 

Temporary Guardian Elizabeth Ruh is present in person. Sharon 

Izzo is present with her attorney, Frederick Turner. [GAL] Terri 

Francis is present. Witnesses are sworn and evidence is taken. 

The court FINDS as follows:

1. Sharon Izzo suffers from cognitive problems and mental 

illness such that she is not able to care for herself without 

assistance. Ms. Izzo has been diagnosed with 

schizoaffective disorder and frontal lobe dysfunction. She 

also suffers from mild dementia. 

2. As noted by Dr. Jameson Way, Sharon Izzo is not capable 

of making personal and financial decisions due to her 

inability to comprehend the long-term implications of her 

actions. Dr. William Schmalz and Dr. Vanessa Baird 

have reached similar conclusions. 

3. [GAL] Terri Francis has thoroughly investigated this 

matter. Ms. Francis has interviewed 24 witnesses and 

reviewed the available medical records. Ms. Francis 

recommends that a professional guardian such as 

Elizabeth Ruh be appointed for Ms. Izzo. 

4. Sharon Izzo is hereby adjudicated an incapacitated adult. 

5. Elizabeth Ruh should be appointed guardian for Sharon 

Izzo. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED THAT:

1) Elizabeth Ruh, d/b/a Personal Financial Services, LLC, is 

appointed as the Guardian of the person and estate of 

Sharon Izzo.

Appellant’s App. p. 45. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 6 of 9

Discussion and Decision

[9] Izzo contends that APS produced insufficient evidence to sustain its finding 

that she needed assistance with her finances and with keeping certain family 

members at bay. APS contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in appointing a guardian for Izzo’s person and estate. 

[10] Indiana Code section 29-3-2-4(a) provides that “[a]ll findings, orders, or other 

proceedings under this article shall be in the discretion of the court unless 

otherwise provided in this article.” “Thus, we apply the abuse of discretion 

standard to review the trial court’s findings and order.” In re Guardianship of 

Atkins, 868 N.E.2d 878, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing In re Guardianship of 

V.S.D., 660 N.E.2d 1064, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)), trans. denied. “An abuse 

of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic 

and effect of the facts and circumstances presented.” Id. (citing J.M. v. N.M., 

844 N.E.2d 590, 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.). “When reviewing the 

trial court’s findings and judgment, we consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the prevailing party, and we neither reweigh the evidence nor 

reassess witness credibility.” Appeal of Wickersham, 594 N.E.2d 498, 501 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1992). 

[11] Indiana Code section 29-3-5-3(a) provides, in part, that 

if it is alleged and the court finds that:

(1) the individual for whom the guardian is sought is an 

incapacitated person or a minor; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 7 of 9

(2) the appointment of a guardian is necessary as a means of 

providing care and supervision of the physical person or 

property of the incapacitated person or minor;

the court shall appoint a guardian under this chapter.

Indiana Code section 29-3-1-7.5 defines an “incapacitated person as follows:

“Incapacitated person” means an individual who:

(1) cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry;

(2) is unable:

(A) to manage in whole or in part the individual’s 

property;

(B) to provide self-care; or

(C) both;

because of insanity, mental illness, mental deficiency, physical 

illness, infirmity, habitual drunkenness, excessive use of drugs, 

incarceration, confinement, detention, duress, fraud, undue 

influence of others on the individual, or other incapacity[.]

1. Incapacity due to Mental Illness and Mental 

Deficiency

[12] We conclude that APS produced sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court’s 

finding that Izzo suffered from mental illness such that she was unable to 

manage her affairs properly. Neurologists Drs. Bales and Way both submitted 

reports finding Izzo to be incompetent. Dr. Way diagnosed Izzo with 

schizoaffective disorder and frontal lobe dysfunction, opining that Izzo was 

“totally incapable of personal & financial decisions[.]” Appellant’s App. p. 10. 

Dr. Bales’s report indicated that “[d]ue to cognitive problems and mental illness 

[Izzo] is not able to care for herself without assistance.” Appellant’s App. p. 

14A. Dr. Bales opined that Izzo could live on her own with daily assistance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 8 of 9

and needed help with decision making, grocery shopping, managing her 

finances, and safety issues. Taken together, these reports amply support a 

finding that Izzo suffered from an incapacitating mental illness or mental 

deficiency. Izzo points to evidence in the record that would support a 

conclusion that she was not mentally incapacitated to the point that a 

guardianship would be necessary. This argument, however, is merely an 

invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. 

2. Whether Appointment of a Guardian was Necessary

[13] We conclude that there is also sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

conclusion that Izzo’s incapacity warranted the appointment of a guardian. 

“Laura” of Comfort Keepers told GAL Francis that Izzo was in need of a 

guardian, and Elizabeth and White both told GAL Francis the same thing, both 

believing that Izzo could no longer balance her check book or handle her 

financial affairs. Educator Dana Thompson told GAL Francis that Izzo “is 

impressionable and tends to agree with whomever she is speaking to at the 

time[,]” is a poor decision maker, and needed a professional guardian. 

Appellant’s App. p. 35. Ruh testified that Izzo needed assistance with her 

finances and insulation from aggressive family members. GAL Francis also 

concluded that a guardian should be appointed for Izzo to “alleviate the stress 

and dysfunction that stands between Mrs. Izzo and her children.” Appellant’s 

App. p. 36. Izzo’s argument on this point again amounts to nothing more than 

an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. APS produced 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1407-GU-320 | April 17, 2015 Page 9 of 9

sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that appointment of a guardian for Izzo 

was necessary. 

[14] We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.