Case Name: In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Carl F. S.: Carla S., Appellant, v. Frank B., Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 2001-03-01
Citations: 242 Wis. 2d 605
Docket Number: No. 99-3012
Parties: In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Carl F. S.: Carla S., Appellant, v. Frank B., Respondent.
Judges: Before Dykman, P.J., Deininger and Leineweber, JJ.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 242
Pages: 605–625

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Carl F. S.: Carla S., Appellant, v. Frank B., Respondent.
Court of Appeals
No. 99-3012.
Submitted on briefs November 7, 2000.
Decided March 1, 2001.
2001 WI App 97
(Also reported in 626 N.W.2d 330.)
On behalf of the appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Richard P. Carr of Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, S.C. of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Mark C. Skolos of Laabs, Skolos & Millis, LLP of Black River Falls.
Before Dykman, P.J., Deininger and Leineweber, JJ.
Circuit Judge Edward E. Leineweber is sitting by special assignment pursuant to the Judicial Exchange Program.

Opinion:
DYKMAN, P.J.
¶ 1. Carla S., Carl S.'s daughter, appeals from an order authorizing her father's guardian to terminate Carl's life lease of his home. She complains of a lack of due process in the guardianship hearing, that the trial court's reasons for its order were insufficient, and that the trial court failed to consider other alternatives for the property other than termination of the life lease. The guardian contests Carla's substantive assertions and asserts that she does not have standing to bring this appeal. We conclude that Carla does have standing, both in the trial court and on appeal, and that the trial court erred by failing to consider other alternatives to terminating Carl's life lease agreement. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 2. In 1991, Carl and his wife, Genevieve, deeded their home to three of their children and a grandchild. The deed was contemporaneous with a lease, in which Carl and Genevieve leased the home for one dollar per year plus taxes, insurance, utilities, and repairs. The lease was for Carl and Genevieve's lifetimes, and provided that they could assign or sublease the property without the consent of their landlords.
¶ 3. Genevieve died in 1993, and Carl continued living in the home until 1997, when he suffered a stroke requiring hospitalization, nursing home care, and ultimately, a guardianship. In 1999, Carl's guardian petitioned the circuit court for an order authorizing the "termination of the Ward's interest in a certain lease." The reason the guardian gave for wanting this disposition was that Carl did not reside at the premises, and the guardian was obligated to pay real estate taxes and insurance on the property. Although the guardian cited WlS. STAT. § 880.19 (1997-1998) as authority for his petition, he did not explain why a gift was contemplated, when §880.19 authorizes only sales, mortgages, pledges, leases, or exchanges.
¶ 4. Before addressing the merits of Carla's appeal, we must consider the guardian's argument that Carla lacks standing to bring this appeal. He does not dispute that Carla had standing in the trial court, but asserts that on appeal she does not. At the hearing on the guardian's petition, the court questioned Carla's standing to contest the petition. The court ultimately concluded that Carla had standing after Carla's attorney pointed out that she was an "interested person," defined in Wis. Stat. § 880.01(6) as an adult relative of the ward. The court then heard evidence from the guardian, who testified that he was paying taxes and other costs associated with the home, but had never tried to rent the home. Carla testified that Carl wanted to return home, with skilled nursing care, whereas if the home were sold, that would not be possible. The trial court did not address the possibility of renting or selling Carl's interest in the home instead of gifting it to some of Carl's children and his grandchild, and concluded that the expense of maintaining the home when it was of no value to Carl was inappropriate. It granted the guardian's petition. Carla appeals.
¶ 5. Whether a person has standing to participate in an action or proceeding is a question of law that we review de novo. Wisconsin Hosp. Ass'n v. Natural Res. Bd., 156 Wis. 2d 688, 700, 457 N.W.2d 879 (Ct. App. 1990). Standing is not a question of jurisdiction, but of sound judicial policy. Wisconsin Bankers Ass'n v. Mutual Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 96 Wis. 2d 438, 444 n.1, 291 N.W.2d 869 (1980). The law of standing is complex and depends in large measure on the type of claim asserted. State ex rel. Parker v. Sullivan, 184 Wis. 2d 668, 678 n.6, 517 N.W.2d 449 (1994). The purpose of the requirement of standing is to ensure that a concrete case informs the court of the consequences of its decision and that people who are directly concerned and are truly adverse will genuinely present opposing petitions to the court. Id. The law of standing should not be construed narrowly or restrictively. State v. Iglesias, 185 Wis. 2d 117, 132, 517 N.W.2d 175 (1994). A party has standing when its claims are no more than a "trifle." State ex rel. First Nat'l Bank v. M & I Peoples Bank, 95 Wis. 2d 303, 309, 290 N.W.2d 321 (1980). Under Wisconsin's law of standing, we must determine whether the party seeking standing was injured in fact, and whether the interest allegedly injured is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. Mogilka v. Jeka, 131 Wis. 2d 459, 467, 389 N.W.2d 359 (Ct. App. 1986).
¶ 6. The guardian has cited no authority holding that a party who has standing in the trial court can nonetheless lack standing on appeal. "Standing" is often referred to as "standing to sue," a trial court concept. See, e.g., Sandroni v. Waukesha County Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 183, 186, 496 N.W.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1992). Logic suggests that a litigant who has standing in a trial court would ordinarily have standing on appeal. There is an appellate requirement that the right to appeal is limited to persons "aggrieved" by a final judgment or order. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mills, 142 Wis. 2d 215, 217, 418 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1987). A person may be an aggrieved party entitled to appeal from a judgment even though he or she is not a named party to the suit if he or she has a substantial interest adverse to the judgment either directly or by privity. Id. at 218. It would be strange indeed if a person who has been recognized by the legislature as an "interested person" and whose standing has been recognized by the trial court, would nonetheless lack standing to appeal the very determination for which he or she had standing in the trial court. And, as we will next explain, interested persons have been judicially recognized as having standing in appellate courts.
¶ 7. Wisconsin Stat. § 319.08 (1961), a predecessor to Wis. Stat. § 880.08, required only that notice of a guardian appointment proceeding be given to the proposed ward or his or her custodian, the proposed ward's presumptive or apparent heirs, and to such other persons as the court ordered. Nonetheless, in a case where an interested person sought unsuccessfully to collaterally attack a guardian's appointment, the court concluded: "This is not to say that the original determi nation of incompetency is not open to review. In addition to a direct appeal of the initial order, any interested party at any time during the guardianship may petition for a rehearing seeking revocation of the guardian-ward status." Bryn v. Thompson, 21 Wis. 2d 24, 27, 29, 123 N.W.2d 505 (1963) (emphasis added). We thus know that under § 319.08, the language of which gives even less protection to interested parties than § 880.08, an interested party had standing to appeal from a decision granting or denying a guardianship. And this holding was affirmed in Coston v. Joseph P., 222 Wis. 2d 1, 11-22, 586 N.W.2d 52 (Ct. App. 1998). In Coston, we addressed the issues raised by interested parties, and affirmed the trial court. Id. at 4-5, 11. Had we concluded in Coston that the appellants lacked standing, we would have dismissed the appeal.
¶ 8. There is little difference between WlS. STAT. § 880.08 and WlS. STAT. § 880.19(5) in their treatment of interested persons. Section 880.19(5) permits an interested person to petition the court for an order authorizing the guardian to sell a ward's property. Section 880.08 provides that an interested person may, under some circumstances, request a hearing at a place where the proposed ward may attend. But there is no mention in either statute of the right of an interested person to participate in the hearing, nor a directive that he or she may not. Neither statute specifically addresses whether Carla has standing. And this is unremarkable. Fewer than a dozen statutes address standing. Standing, therefore, is most commonly discussed as a common law concept.
¶ 9. Interested persons are not explicitly given participation rights by the language of Wis. Stat. § 880.08. And yet, we know that under Bryn, an interested person has standing to appeal an order issued pursuant to § 880.08. WISCONSIN STAT. § 880.19 is identical in its treatment of interested persons. The guardian does not explain why an interested person has standing to appeal an order issued pursuant to § 880.08 but not one issued pursuant to § 880.19. Bryn is persuasive authority that the opposite is true.
¶ 10. The guardian relies upon Coston, 222 Wis. 2d at 20-21, to conclude that Carla did not have the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, to demand a trial, to present evidence, or to raise eviden-tiary objections at the hearing. This is an overreading of Coston. While we noted in Coston, as we do here, that no statute provided for interested persons to demand a trial, present evidence, or raise evidentiary objections, we also said:
This is not to conclude, however, that circuit courts are foreclosed from allowing for the participation of interested persons. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, a court could consider such participation to be very helpful, and could exercise discretion to allow interested persons to participate to the extent it would deem appropriate.
Id. at 21. It is therefore within a trial court's discretion to allow an interested person to participate in a Wis. Stat. ch. 880 guardianship proceeding. And that is what the trial court did here. The court could see no reason why Carla should be excluded from the motion hearing. And indeed, there was no reason. If Carla had been prohibited from asserting her view, the argument she wished to make would have been made by no one. And that is often true in guardianship proceedings. Without an interested party's ability to protest a guardian's gift of a ward's property, often there would be no check on a guardian's failure to follow the law. And as we have explained, Bryn and Coston hold that an interested person has standing to appeal from a ch. 880 order appointing a guardian. The statutory rights given to an interested party are similar whether we consider a WlS. STAT. § 880.08 guardianship petition or a WlS. Stat. § 880.19(5) petition to transfer a ward's property. We conclude that Carla has standing to appeal the trial court's order permitting the guardian to terminate Carl's lease.
¶ 11. We turn to the substantive issues. Carla asserts that the trial court failed to consider alternatives to terminating Carl's lease. An alternative that Carla suggested was that Carl should return home and save nursing home costs by using home care providers. On appeal, Carla argues that the trial court also should have considered renting Carl's home, thereby preserving it in a financially viable manner. She concludes that making a gift of Carl's property is contrary to Carl's best interests. The guardian does not complain that Carla failed to raise this issue in the trial court, but instead addresses Carla's issue on the merits. He claims that "the basis for allowing a Guardian to transfer the real property of a ward is clearly set forth in the Wisconsin Statutes," and that the transfer of the property was not a "gift" in the traditional or legal sense of the word. Because the parties have briefed the issue of a guardian's authority to make a gift of the ward's property, we will consider it. See Beard v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., 225 Wis. 2d 1, 17, 591 N.W.2d 156 (1999).
¶ 12. The guardian admitted that he had never tried to rent Carl's house to provide income for the guardianship estate. Common sense tells us that the opportunity to rent or sell a home for one dollar per year plus an amount equaling taxes, insurance, utilities, and upkeep is something of considerable value. Tenants almost always pay far more than that. The guardian does not tell us how his decision to gift Carl's property will benefit Carl, except to say that he did so to preserve the assets of Carl's estate. But that begs the question of whether there was a better alternative to gifting Carl's property.
¶ 13. While we agree with the guardian that Wis. Stat. § 880.19(5) provides for the "transfer" of a ward's property, that statute does not mention gifts as a method of transfer. Section 880.19(5) permits a guardian to "sell, mortgage, pledge, lease or exchange any property of the guardianship estate." Gifts are conspicuously absent from the statutory ways a guardian my transfer a ward's property. And in V.D.H. v. Circuit Court, 154 Wis. 2d 576, 584, 453 N.W.2d 882 (1990), the supreme court, in reviewing the powers of a guardian under § 880.19 held:
The guardian had no authority, however, to exercise any power over the ward's property which was not conferred by statute. Thus, the guardian of the estate could not make a gift of property of the estate on the ward's behalf or exercise on the ward's behalf those property rights denominated as "personal" to the ward....
We do not accept the guardian's assertion that the gift of the life lease was in reality not a gift. The guardian suggests that relieving Carl of the burden of paying real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance is consideration for the transfer of the property. While that might be true if the property were unrentable or could not be sold, there is no record support for such conclusions. On remand, the trial court will be able to consider the appropriate disposition of Carl's property after considering the possible alternatives, and their costs.
¶ 14. We conclude that the trial court erred by not considering alternatives less drastic than a gift of Carl's property to his landlords. Having so concluded, we need not consider Carla's other reasons she believes that we should reverse the trial court's order.
By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1997-98 version unless otherwise noted.
For example, Wis. Stat. § 184.07 gives nonprofit associations standing under some circumstances. And WlS. STAT. § 867.02(2) gives certain persons standing to petition for sum mary assignment of an estate. Though few in number, the existence of statutes conferring standing indicates that the legislature is aware of the concept of standing, and could have denied interested persons standing to appeal had it wished to do so.
Coston v. Joseph P., 222 Wis. 2d 1, 20-21, 586 N.W.2d 52 ( Ct. App. 1998), relies upon R.S. v. Milwaukee County, 162 Wis. 2d 197, 209, 470 N.W.2d 260 (1991), for its conclusion that "only the proposed ward, the guardian ad litem, and advocacy counsel for the proposed ward have the right to present and cross-examine witnesses." We question whether R.S. supports this proposition. R.S. involved a dispute between a proposed ward and Milwaukee County, a guardianship petitioner. R.S., 162 Wis. 2d at 199-200. There were no other interested parties involved in R.S., and the dispute there concerned whether the petitioner or the proposed ward had the burden of providing the testimony of the physician whose report formed the basis for the petition. Id. at 199, 208. In that context the supreme court said: "We conclude that a more logical reading of sec. 880.33(2)(a)1 is that the proposed ward, attorney or guardian ad litem has the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses, including the physician or psychologist reporting to the court." Id. at 208. The court then concluded that WlS. STAT. § 880.33 required the petitioner to produce the professional whose report formed the basis of the petition. Id. This conclusion, in the context of R.S., would not appear to support the proposition that only the proposed ward, the guardian ad litem, or advocacy counsel has the right to present and cross-examine witnesses. Because a proposed ward, a proposed guardian, or advocacy counsel has certain rights does not mean that others do not also have those rights.
As a general proposition, there would be few people who would agree that giving their homes to another to avoid the payment of taxes, insurance, and maintenance would be a quid pro quo.
Sale of Carl's interest would result in an estate per autre vie, an estate "for or during a period measured by another's life." Black's Law Dictionary 1156, 1248 (7th ed. 1999). The likely buyers would be Carl's landlords, or someone willing to purchase housing discounted for an uncertain length of tenancy.