Opinion ID: 2581379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Character of the 1989 Proceedings

Text: [¶ 22] The district court in its order of June 12, 2000, determined that [t]he file contains sufficient evidence that the ward, Mr. Paul Andrews, was an incompetent person as defined in Wyoming Statute 3-1-101(a)(xii) on April 13, 1989. The 1989 Order was an adjudication of incompetency because it specifically found Mr. Andrews to be suffering from a mental illness or deficiency. This conclusion drawn by the district court on the character of the 1989 proceedings is significant. As discussed infra whether a guardian or conservator is appointed under the general guardianship statutes found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-1-101 through 3-2-202, or under the veterans guardianship statutes found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-6-101 through 3-6-119, will determine the scope and effect of the appointment. We find this conclusion by the district court to be clearly erroneous. [¶ 23] The 1989 proceeding was an appointment of a guardian under the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act (UVGA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-6-101 through 3-6-119. The petition itself, as well as the certificates attached to it executed by the VA physician and VA general counsel, each indicate that the guardianship was sought under the UVGA. The petition complies with § 3-6-105 precisely, going so far as to list all of the proposed Ward's nearest relatives and their residences as required by subsection (b). Moreover, the petition purports to have provided notice to the VA. That fact, coupled with the VA's continued inclusion in this case as a party in interest as mandated by § 3-6-103(b), clearly shows that the action was brought under the UVGA. [¶ 24] Further, the various co-conservators have explicitly acknowledged over the years that the appointment was brought under the UVGA. The first year's accounting of the estate executed by Key Bank spanning the time period of April 13, 1989 to April 30, 1990 states [t]hat, to the best of affiant's understanding and belief, Wyoming Statutes Section 3-6-112, which governs fees allowable to guardians under the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act and is applicable to this estate, permits compensation to a guardian for ordinary services up to an amount of five percent (5%) of the income of the ward for the said accounting period; and that, for the said accounting period, the amount so calculated would be $2,778.92. The court and VA approved this accounting and have generally continued to do so over the course of the guardianship. [¶ 25] It appears from its order that the district court made its determination that the 1989 proceeding was an adjudication of incompetency based solely on the fact that the original court had referenced Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-1-101(a)(xii) in the order establishing the guardianship. However, were we to conclude that the 1989 proceedings were an attempt to adjudicate the incompetency of Andrews, this court would be compelled herein to declare the order issued void. [¶ 26] It was stated in Thoeming v. District Court of Sixth Jud. Dist., 379 P.2d 543, 544 (Wyo.1963) in which this court issued a writ of prohibition against a district court: It is elementary that proceedings for adjudication of insanity or mental incompetency are required to be in strict compliance with statutory requirements. In the absence of such compliance a judgment declaring a person to be of unsound mind is void. One court in this area has well expressed the rule in saying, If there is any class of cases which should be conducted with the utmost care to observe all of the requirements of the statute, it is the cases conducted for the purpose of determining the sanity of a citizen.... ... ... The procedure for determining that a person is insane or mentally incompetent is definite and clear. It requires a finding either by a lunacy commission or by a jury and that only after various steps have been taken. Any attempt to adjudicate a person as an `incompetent' without compliance with the statutes contained in this chapter would be a deprivation of due process. Since there had been no adjudication of Thoeming's incompetence on July 13, 1962, the district court was without jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for him and such purported order is void. Id. (citations omitted); see also Interest of AM, 694 P.2d 734 (Wyo.1985). [¶ 27] The Wyoming statutes found in title three governing adjudications of incompetency contain detailed and extensive procedural safeguards as well as substantive guidelines to ensure that the appointment of a guardian and/or conservator takes place in a manner consistent with constitutional due process. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-102 enacted in 1985 explicitly lists the parties who must be provided notice of the involuntary appointment of a guardian. [3] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-103 continues to codify the State's statutory and constitutional precedent by providing that [t]he petitioner, the proposed ward or his custodian may demand a jury trial on the question of incompetency. See Byers v. Solier, 16 Wyo. 232, 93 P. 59, 63 (1907) (discussing 1899 revised probate code governing Guardians of Insane and Incompetent Persons, Lunatics and Drunkards and issuing a writ of habeas corpus in favor of a party in state mental institution). [¶ 28] Based upon our review of the record in this case, we hold that the 1989 appointment of a guardian and conservator for Andrews took place pursuant to the provisions of the UVGA. Moreover, this court will not place its imprimatur of approval on the 1989 proceedings as an adjudication of Andrews' incompetency sufficient to satisfy the due process guaranteed to him by the United States and Wyoming Constitutions.