Opinion ID: 1481116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mr. Anderson files a guardianship petition.

Text: So things stood until May 2002, when Mr. Andersonstill with no evidence of any wrongdoing on Col. Verfurth's part hired attorney William Rogers. Mr. Rogers testified that he asked Mr. Anderson for all documents that Mr. Anderson had concerning Sally Jumper, but that the only document that Mr. Anderson showed him was a general power of attorney with a durable provision from April 1995. Mr. Rogers further testified that he thought that that document gave Mr. Anderson a general power . . . to act on [Ms. Jumper's] behalf, that is [f]ull power and authority to sell, buy, trade, and on and on and on. The only document in the record from April 1995, however, is a medical power of attorney that gave Mr. Anderson authority to make decisions about [Ms. Jumper's] medical care if there ever [came] a time when [she could not] make these decisions [herself]. See also supra, note 5. And at any rate, the power of attorney that Mr. Anderson gave Mr. Rogers had limited practical forcein Mr. Rogers' view, that power of attorney wasn't truly operative, because it required two physicians, one being the attending physician, to declare [Ms. Jumper] to be incompetent, and that had not happened. Mr. Rogers testified that prior to proceeding further, he spoke with Nancy Ludewig (a friend of Ms. Jumper's), Mamie Boyd (later, the court-appointed visitor for Ms. Jumper), and twice with Ms. Jumper's doctor, Marta Schneider. According to Mr. Rogers, Dr. Schneider told him that Ms. Jumper was lucid part of the time but not consistently lucid. Mr. Rogers did not speak with Ms. Jumper to determine whether she wanted a guardian appointed for her, and made no independent effort to determine whether she had counsel. Feeling that Col. Verfurth was stonewalling Mr. Anderson and that another letter demanding an accounting would be a waste of Mr. Rogers' time and Mr. Anderson's money, Mr. Rogers suggested that Mr. Anderson consider having himself appointed as guardian for Ms. Jumper. Mr. Anderson agreed. Accordingly, on June 18, 2002, Mr. Rogers filed in the Probate Division of the Superior Court a verified Petition in which Mr. Anderson sought to have himself appointed as Ms. Jumper's guardian and conservator. The Petition alleged that Mr. Anderson was entitled to serve as Ms. Jumper's guardian and conservator because he was her closest and oldest friend. Mr. Anderson also alleged that he was filing the Petition because of Ms. Jumper's lack of consistent lucidity and comprehension of her situation, and added that Ms. Jumper was totally blind. In a blank in the Petition that asks about [a]ny counsel to the subject known to petitioner, Mr. Rogers wrote unknown (but almost certainly NONE). As the concrete reasons for why a conservator should be appointed, Mr. Rogers checked the following two boxes: (1) the subject of the proceeding has property that will be wasted or dissipated unless property management is provided; and (2) money is needed for the support, care and welfare of the subject. After receiving the Petition, the trial court appointed Fiona Druy as Examiner, see D.C.Code §§ 21-2041(d) and 21-2054(a) (2001); Mamie Boyd as Visitor, see D.C.Code § 21-2033(c); and Sheryl Ellison as Counsel for Ms. Jumper, see D.C.Code § 21-2033(b). Ms. Ellison's Response to the Petition painted a markedly different portrait of Ms. Jumper than the Petition. Asked about Mr. Anderson's attempt to become her guardian, Ms. Ellison quoted Ms. Jumper as saying: he (Allen) has a nerve to apply for this petition. According to Ms. Ellison, Ms. Jumper stated that Allen Anderson is not her oldest and closest friend; that Jean Howard is. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, Ms. Jumper indicated that if someone had to be responsible for her in the event she was not . . . able to do so herself, she stated that she would like for Jean Howard to handle her affairs. Ms. Jumper was very clear that she did not want Mr. Anderson to be involved. Ms. Ellison also reported that Ms. Jumper told Ms. Boyd, the court-appointed visitor and a woman who had known Ms. Jumper for approximately six years, that she did not want [Mr. Anderson] to be appointed as her guardian. Finally, Ms. Ellison reported that Mr. Anderson had admitted to her that he filed the Petition despite [Ms. Jumper's] objections because he want[ed] what [was] best for Ms. Jumper and [did] not want anyone to take advantage of her. Ms. Ellison believed Ms. Jumper to be well taken care [of] and secure in her surroundings, and reported that during their meeting, Ms. Jumper was alert, and appeared to comprehend the nature of the proceedings. Although she had no specific knowledge of her portfolio, Ms. Jumper referred to Col. Verfurth as her broker. But according to Ms. Ellison, Ms. Jumper's caretakers at the nursing home where she was staying said that Ms. Jumper had various medical conditions and that she required care and oversight. Consequently, Ms. Ellison concluded that [a]n appointment of a permanent general guardian and a general conservator . . . to provide continuing care and supervision would be in the best interest of Ms. Jumper. Fiona Druy, the court-appointed examiner, also concluded, similarly to Ms. Ellison, that it appear[ed] that Miss Jumper require[d] the appointment of a guardian and conservator to ensure that all her daily needs may be continued to be met in the most appropriate living environment for her overall safety and well being. Like Ms. Ellison, Ms. Druy found Ms. Jumper to be neat and clean, as well as alert and generally pleasant. But mentally, according to Ms. Druy, Ms. Jumper was not in great shape, being oriented to self and place only. On August 1, 2002, the trial court held a hearing on the Petition. Mr. Rogers has conceded that by the day of this hearing he knew about, and indeed had talked to, Ms. Kincaid, who was Ms. Jumper's estate-planning attorney in 2001. Mr. Rogers also has acknowledged that on the day before the hearing, he received from Ms. Ellison (Ms. Jumper's court-appointed counsel) a report that included a letter from Ms. Kincaid. Ms. Kincaid's letter advised that she had represented Ms. Jumper since 1995, and that she had prepared for Ms. Jumper a slew of documents, including a will, a trust, a revocable trust agreement, a durable limited power of attorney, a durable medical power of attorney, and an advance directive. Ms. Kincaid also wrote that over the years Ms. Jumper had modified the initial estate-planning documents. Crucially, Ms. Kincaid wrote: At this time, all of the planning arrangements continue in effect. In the event that Miss Jumper is no longer able to handle her financial affairs or make her own medical decisions, appropriate arrangements have already been made, and individuals appointed, to address these matters on Miss Jumper's behalf. Mr. Rogers testified that he was pretty sure that he read Ms. Kincaid's letter prior to the hearing, but nonetheless he did not bring to the court's attention any of the documents referred to in that letter. Mr. Rogers claims that he thought that it was for Ms. Kincaid, who was present at the hearing, to present those documents to the court. After a brief hearing, the trial court appointed Mr. Anderson as Ms. Jumper's guardian. The court ruled, however, that Mr. Anderson could not serve as Ms. Jumper's conservator because he was not a member of the bar. Therefore, the court appointed appellee Andrea Sloan (an attorney who happened to be in the courtroom at the time) as the conservator.