Court Opinion

ID: 9944478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 17:08:51.67289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:11.768814
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Guardianship of LaRue, 2024-Ohio-692.]

                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                       CLERMONT COUNTY

 IN RE:                                                 :

        GUARDIANSHIP OF JUANITA                         :      CASE NO. CA2023-08-060
        LARUE
                                                        :              OPINION
                                                                        2/26/2024
                                                        :

                                                        :

                                                        :

          APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                           PROBATE DIVISION
                          Case No. 2020 GI 1661

Donnell & Thomas Law, LLC, and Titus G. Donnell, for appellant.

Law Office of Vivian L. Martin, LLC, and Vivian L. Martin, for appellee.

        PIPER, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, The Laurels of Milford Nursing Home, LLC ("The Laurels"),

appeals from the Clermont County Probate Court's entry approving and settling the

account of Vivian Martin as guardian of the estate of Juanita LaRue. 1 For the reasons

outlined below, we reverse the probate court's decision and remand the matter for further

1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(a), we sua sponte remove this case from the accelerated calendar for the purposes
of issuing this opinion.
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-08-060

proceedings.

                            I. Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} On December 7, 2020, after a series of visits from Clermont County Adult

Protective Services (APS), Juanita LaRue was placed in The Laurels of Milford nursing

home due to her declining physical and mental health. On December 10, 2020, APS filed

a petition for protective services in the probate court. APS sought an order that LaRue

remain at The Laurels, that a guardianship on her estate and person be established to

assist with the Medicaid application process, and that LaRue's personal property and

health care be managed by a guardian. On December 22, 2020, the probate court issued

an order of protective services on the terms sought.

       {¶ 3} On January 12, 2021, attorney Vivian Martin applied to the probate court to

be appointed as guardian of LaRue's estate. On April 15, 2021, the probate court issued

letters of guardianship to Martin as guardian of LaRue's estate. Over the next several

months, The Laurels was in contact with Martin and sought her cooperation in qualifying

LaRue for Medicaid coverage.        Martin failed over the course of the first year of

guardianship to secure Medicaid coverage for LaRue. On June 24, 2022, The Laurels

filed a complaint in probate court against Martin, alleging that Martin had been inactive in

securing necessary health benefits for LaRue, and LaRue had been denied Medicaid due

to Martin's lack of cooperation. Martin answered on July 15, 2022 denying the allegations.

A hearing was set for August 19, 2022, but The Laurels' representative failed to attend,

and on August 26, 2022, the probate court dismissed the complaint. However, The

Laurels acknowledged Martin met with their attorney on January 17, 2023. At that time,

Martin produced the necessary documentation to qualify LaRue for Medicaid coverage.

       {¶ 4} LaRue passed away on April 2, 2023. On June 6, 2023, Martin filed an

Application to Expend Funds Post-Death listing some of LaRue's outstanding debts. An

                                           -2-
                                                                Clermont CA2023-08-060

attached billing statement from The Laurels indicated that LaRue owed an outstanding

balance of $124,282.46. Martin stated that the balance could be partially paid from the

funds in the guardianship checking account and LaRue's assets would then be completely

expended. On June 9, 2023, the probate court authorized the expenditure of funds and

ordered payment of $2,157.45 to The Laurels from the checking account.

       {¶ 5} On July 18, 2023, Martin filed her final account in LaRue's guardianship,

and the probate court scheduled a hearing on the final account for August 23, 2023.

Creditors had until August 18, 2023 to file exceptions to the account. On July 25, 2023,

Martin filed a motion for waiver of service of the account on Donald LaRue, LaRue's only

next of kin, because Martin was unable to locate him. In the same motion, Martin further

requested that the probate court vacate the August 23, 2023 hearing and close the

guardianship. On July 26, 2023, the probate court entered an order waiving service on

Donald LaRue and ordering that the August 23, 2023 hearing be vacated and the matter

closed. On the same day, the probate court journalized an entry approving and settling

the final account, and discharging Martin as fiduciary. The record does not reflect that

The Laurels received formal notice of any of the aforesaid filings.

       {¶ 6} The Laurels appealed on August 24, 2023.

                                   II. Legal Analysis

       {¶ 7} The Laurels' sole assignment of error states:

              THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION SETTLING
              THE GUARDIAN'S FINAL ACCOUNT WITHOUT HOLDING
              A HEARING PURSUANT TO R.C. 2109.32.

       {¶ 8} On appeal, The Laurels argues that the probate court abused its discretion

by not holding a hearing to approve the guardian's final accounting as mandated by R.C.

2109.32, thereby depriving The Laurels of the opportunity to assert its right to file

exceptions to the account. We agree.

                                           -3-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-08-060

       {¶ 9} R.C. 2109.302(A) requires that "every guardian or conservator shall render

a final account within thirty days after completing the administration of the ward's estate

or within any other period of time that the court may order." R.C. 2109.32(A) mandates

that the probate court set the final account for a hearing not earlier than 30 days after the

filing of the account. At the hearing the probate court "shall inquire into, consider, and

determine all matters relative to the account and the manner in which the fiduciary has

executed the fiduciary's trust." R.C. 2109.32(A).

       {¶ 10} R.C. 2109.33 provides that, "[a guardian] may serve notice of the hearing

upon the fiduciary's account to be conducted under section 2109.32 of the Revised Code,

or may cause the notice to be served, upon any person who is interested in the estate or

trust, including creditors as the court may direct." Separate and apart from the service of

notice of hearing on the account, R.C. 2109.33 further provides:

              Any person interested in an estate or trust may file exceptions
              to an account or to matters pertaining to the execution of the
              trust. All exceptions shall be specific and written. Exceptions
              shall be filed and a copy of them furnished to the fiduciary by
              the exceptor, not less than five days prior to the hearing on
              the account.

The Laurels is a creditor of LaRue's estate. R.C. 2109.33 recognizes that a "person

interested" in the estate includes creditors of the estate. Thus, The Laurels is authorized

by R.C. 2109.33 to file exceptions to a guardian's account.

       {¶ 11} In this case, Martin filed her final guardian's account on July 18, 2023 and

the probate court scheduled a hearing for August 23, 2023. On July 25, 2023, Martin

requested that the probate court waive service of the account upon LaRue's next of kin,

vacate the August 23, 2023 hearing, and close the guardianship. The next day, July 26,

2023, the probate court granted Martin's motion, vacated the hearing and closed LaRue's

guardianship.    By doing so, the probate court failed to comply with the hearing

                                            -4-
                                                                 Clermont CA2023-08-060

requirements set out in R.C. 2109.32 and denied The Laurels' right to file an exception to

the account pursuant to R.C. 2109.33. As the hearing had been scheduled for August

23, 2023, The Laurels had until August 18, 2023 to file exceptions.

       {¶ 12} The proper mechanism to challenge whether the guardian has properly

administered the estate is to file exceptions to the account pursuant to R.C. 2109.33. See

In re Skrzyniecki, 118 Ohio App.3d 67, 72 (6th Dist.1997).               Pursuant to R.C.

2111.14(A)(3), the duties of a guardian of a ward's estate includes the duty "to pay all just

debts due from the ward out of the estate in the possession or under the control of the

guardian * * *." The charges LaRue accrued as a resident of The Laurels are LaRue's

"just debts" and therefore Martin had a duty to pay them. This duty includes the obligation

to make timely application for Medicaid benefits. See In re Ewanicky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 81742, 2003-Ohio-3351, ¶ 12-14 (holding that guardian was personally liable for

ward's debt accrued due to guardian's negligence in failing to timely apply for Medicaid).

By vacating the August 23, 2023 hearing, the probate court deprived The Laurels of the

opportunity to file exceptions to the account.

                                        Conclusion

       {¶ 13} In light of the foregoing, we conclude the probate court erred in vacating the

August 23, 2023 hearing and depriving The Laurels of the opportunity to file exceptions

to the account. Therefore, The Laurels' sole assignment of error is sustained and this

matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings with the direction that the

probate court schedule a hearing on the final guardianship account.

       {¶ 14} Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

       S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

                                            -5-