UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 13-1519

ROBERT L. SOLZE, APPELLANT,

V.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before MOORMAN, LANCE, and DAVIS, Judges.

O R D E R

This appeal concerns matters relating to VA's fiduciary activities in connection with 

managing a veteran's VA benefits. On May 22, 2013, the appellant, veteran Robert L. Solze, through

counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal from a January 24, 2013, decision of the Board of Veterans'

Appeals' (Board) that, among other actions, appointed the veteran's daughter, Lois M. Dimitre, as

temporary VA fiduciary to manage the appellant's benefits pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 13.63 (2012).1

After the scheduling of a Court conference in this appeal, pursuant to Rule 33 of this Court's Rules

of Practice and Procedure (Rules), the appellant informed the Court that, in July 2013, the VA Office

of Regional Counsel in Augusta, Maine, filed in a state probate court a petition for appointment of

conservator for Mr. Solze relating to Mr. Solze's VA benefits. At the request of the appellant, the

Court stayed proceedings until December 6, 2013, based on a tentative agreement concerning the

appointment of a conservator for Mr. Solze that was reached by the parties in the ongoing probate

court proceeding.

On December 6, 2013, the appellant filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on a final 

agreement of the parties, in York County Probate Court in Maine, that he asserts has "resolved the

controversies before the Court" in this appeal and attaches a copy of the agreement. Dec. 6, 2013,

Motion to WithdrawAppeal, Exhibit B ("Assented to Motion forConservatorship Order Limitations

and Condition" filed in York County Probate Court). Attached to this order is a copy of the parties'

"Assented to Motion for Conservatorship Order Limitations and Condition" that was filed in York

Also, on May 22, 2013, the Court concluded proceedings in Solze v. Shinseki, No. 12-1512, a petition case

1

filed by the appellant's counsel, which sought to compel the Secretary to, inter alia, pay Mr. Solze his awarded VA

benefits through Ms. Dimitre. At that time, the Court denied a motion for full-Court review of a January 4, 2013, panel

decision denying the petition, Solze v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 118 (2013)(per curiam) (denying the petition but expressing

concern "over VA's reluctance to utilize other methods by which it is authorized to distribute benefits during a dispute

over the appointment of a fiduciary, namely 38 C.F.R. § § 13.59 [(Court-appointed fiduciary)] and 13.63 [(Payment to

custodian-in-fact")] ."). Full-Court action followed the panel's May 3, 2013, denial of the appellant's motion for panel

reconsideration. Solze v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 299 (2013) (per curiam). This Court issued its mandate on July 23,

2013. 
County Probate Court and approved by the Probate Court. The agreement itself specifies that the

probate court appoints Ms. Dimitre as the conservator of Mr. Solze, provides that VA will certify

Ms. Dimitre as the VA fiduciary for Mr. Solze's VA benefits, and establishes other limitations and

conditions, including a VA field examination and the securing of a bond. Id. The agreement also

provides that "VA agrees to rely on the procedures and remedies available under Maine Probate

Code to resolve any concerns or disputes that may arise about the accountings and/or the use of funds

and will bring any such concerns or disputes to the attention of the [York County Probate] Court."

Id. at para 4. The agreement further provides for certain VA actions to be expedited. The appellant

stated that the Secretary "takes no position" on the motion. 

Pursuant to a Court order directing that the Secretary clarify his position, the Secretary filed

a response noting that he agrees that withdrawal of the appeal is proper based on the agreement in

York County Probate Court but does not agree with the "gratuitous statements" contained in the

appellant's motion concerning the Secretary. Dec.. 6, 2013, Secretary's Response to Court's Order

2

at 1. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant the appellant's motion to dismiss his appeal and issue

mandate as part of this order. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 41 (regarding issuance of mandate), 42

(regarding voluntary dismissal).

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED and this appeal

is DISMISSED. Under Rule 41(b), this order is the final judgment and mandate of the Court. 

See U.S. VET. APP. 41(b).

 

DATED: December 20, 2013 PER CURIAM.

 In ruling on the instant motion, the Court need not consider the characterizations offered by the appellant's 2

counsel with respect to the agreement's provisions and the Secretary's actions. 

2