Court Opinion

ID: 9950835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:11:35.910125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:52.631656
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Guardianship of Robinson, 2024-Ohio-942.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                MAHONING COUNTY

                   IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF:

                      MORRIS ROBINSON, AN INCOMPETENT.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 23 MA 0065

                                Civil Appeal from the
           Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, of Mahoning County, Ohio
                              Case No. 2010 GI 00152

                                           BEFORE:
           William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                    Sitting by Assignment,
                         Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                              JUDGMENT:
                                                Affirmed.

 Atty. Anna M. Ciambotti, Henderson, Covington, Messenger, Newman & Thomas Co.,
 L.P.A., for Appellant.

                                       Dated: March 13, 2024
                                                                                             –2–

 KLATT, J.

        {¶1}    Appellant, Emma Warner, Guardian, appeals from the April 18, 2023
judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, overruling
her objections and adopting the March 10, 2023 magistrate’s decision, finding the
following: Appellant, as the representative payee for the Social Security benefits of Morris
Robinson, an incompetent (“the Ward”), has not been timely paying the Ward’s rent nor
providing the Ward with funds so he can purchase personal items; ordering the removal
of Appellant as representative payee; ordering the Mahoning County Payeeship Program
through Help Network of Northeast Ohio (“Help Network”) to apply to become the Ward’s
representative payee; ordering that funds of the Ward are to be administered through
Help Network; and ordering Appellant to cooperate with the process of transferring the
Ward’s income to Help Network.1
        {¶2}    On appeal, Appellant asserts the probate court abused its discretion in
ordering her removal as representative payee for the Ward’s Social Security benefits and
ordering that Help Network apply to become the Ward’s new representative payee
because there was no finding of malfeasance or misappropriation on her part. Appellant
also alleges that federal law preempts state law in the selection of representative payees.
        {¶3}    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶4}    On November 29, 2010, Appellant filed an application for appointment of
guardian of alleged incompetent representing that her cousin, the Ward, aged 40, is
incompetent by reason of mental retardation/developmental disabilities. The Ward’s
parents are both deceased. The Ward received $731 per month in Social Security
disability benefits at that time. A statement of expert evaluation, filed by Dr. T. Cubbison,
opined that a guardianship should be established. Attached to the expert evaluation were
a psychological evaluation and a psychology report.

1 The Ward has lived semi-independently in an apartment with two other disabled adults and receives

services through RaeArc Industries, Inc. (“RaeArc”) as his service provider.

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                       –3–

       {¶5}     On November 30, 2010, the probate court found the Ward indigent and
appointed counsel. The court filed a notice to prospective ward of application and
hearing. On December 28, 2010, the court investigator filed a report recommending that
a guardianship over the Ward’s person only is necessary.
       {¶6}     On January 12, 2011, the matter was heard before the magistrate on
Appellant’s application for the appointment of guardianship. The next day, the magistrate
filed a decision finding the Ward incompetent by reason of mental impairment, finding a
guardianship necessary, finding Appellant to be a suitable person, and approving her
application. On January 18, 2011, the probate court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
       {¶7}     On February 17, 2011, Appellant filed an oath of guardian and a fiduciary’s
acceptance. That same date, the probate court appointed Appellant guardian over the
Ward’s person for an indefinite time period.
       {¶8}     Because the Ward’s condition will not change or improve, on March 19,
2013, the probate court ordered that in subsequent guardian’s reports, the requirement
to file statements of expert evaluation shall be waived. Appellant filed nine guardian’s
reports: March 25, 2013; April 23, 2015; March 21, 2016; March 13, 2017; February 23,
2018; February 1, 2019; March 24, 2020; January 7, 2021; and January 7, 2022.
       {¶9}     On November 30, 2022, Mahoning County Board of Developmental
Disabilities (“MCBDD”) filed a report requesting a status hearing, indicating the following:

       On November 18, 2022, MCBDD Investigative Services Unit opened a
       Major Unusual Incident (“MUI”) investigation involving the Ward, Morris
       Robinson. (See attached Exhibit “A”). The reason the MUI investigation was
       * * * due to the receipt of a complaint from Tisa Ewing of RaeArc Industries,
       Inc., who is the residential provider for the Ward. According to RaeArc, the
       Guardian, Emma Warner, who is also the Ward’s Representative Payee
       has not been paying the Ward’s rent nor providing the Ward with funds so
       he can purchase personal items. The MUI investigation will involve the
       determination of whether the Guardian is misappropriating the Ward’s
       funds.

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                        –4–

       As the MUI investigation is continuing the undersigned is requesting a
       status hearing on this matter requiring the Guardian to appear and explain
       why the Ward’s provider is not being paid for the services it is providing. If
       the lack of payment continues, the Ward could be subject to a thirty (30)
       day notice of termination of services by the Provider.

(11/30/2022 Report to the Court Request for Status Hearing).

       {¶10} Appellant’s tenth guardian’s report was filed on January 18, 2023, revealing
no major changes, the care given to the Ward is adequate, and the guardianship should
be continued.
       {¶11} A hearing before the magistrate was held on January 26, 2023. Testimony
was heard regarding the amount of the Ward’s Social Security benefits, his monthly
expenses and incidental account balance, and Appellant’s delinquency in payment of
those expenses to RaeArc as provider of services for the Ward.
       {¶12} On March 10, 2023, the magistrate filed a decision, finding: Appellant, as
the representative payee for the Ward has not been timely paying the Ward’s rent nor
providing the Ward with funds so he can purchase personal items; recommending that
Help Network apply to become the Ward’s representative payee; recommending that
funds of the Ward be administered through Help Network; and recommending that
Appellant cooperate with the process of transferring the Ward’s income to Help Network.
       {¶13} On March 24, 2023, Appellant filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.
On April 3, 2023, Appellant filed a motion to stay the magistrate’s March 10, 2023 decision
which was denied by the probate court on April 10, 2023.
       {¶14} On April 18, 2023, the probate court overruled Appellant’s objections and
adopted the magistrate’s decision.
       {¶15} Appellant filed this appeal and raises two assignments of error.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

       THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ORDERED
       THAT HELP NETWORK OF NORTHEAST OHIO BECOME THE WARD’S
       REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE FOR HIS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                       –5–

                           ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

      THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ORDERED
      THAT HELP NETWORK OF NORTHEAST OHIO APPLY FOR AND
      BECOME REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE OF THE WARD’S SOCIAL
      SECURITY BENEFITS IN CONTRAVENTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH
      GOVERNS THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.

      {¶16} In her first assignment of error, Appellant argues the probate court abused
its discretion in ordering that Help Network apply to become the Ward’s representative
payee for his Social Security benefits because no finding of malfeasance or
misappropriation on her part was determined by the court.
      {¶17} In her second assignment of error, Appellant contends the probate court
abused its discretion in ordering that Help Network apply to become the Ward’s
representative payee for his Social Security benefits because federal law preempts state
law in the selection of such representative payees.
      {¶18} Because Appellant’s assignments of error are interrelated, as they both
assert an abuse of discretion in ordering that Help Network apply to become the Ward’s
representative payee for his Social Security benefits, we will address them together for
ease of discussion.

      A guardian is deemed to be an officer of the probate court. In re C.W., 7th
      Dist. Columbiana No. 13 CO 44, 2014-Ohio-2934, ¶ 19, citing In re
      Clendenning, 145 Ohio St. 82, 93, 60 N.E.2d 676 (1945). Ergo, the power
      of the probate court is superior to that of guardians appointed by the court.
      Id.; R.C. 2111.50(A)(1). With the exception of the disposition of gifts from a
      ward’s estate, the power of the court relative to one declared a ward is to
      be exercised in his or her best interests. R.C. 2111.50(C)(1).

      A probate court’s decision regarding matters involving guardianships will
      not be reversed on appeal unless the probate court’s decision amounts to
      an abuse of discretion. In re Estate of Bednarczuk, 80 Ohio App.3d 548,
      551, 609 N.E.2d 1310 (1992). It is well-settled that probate courts have

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                       –6–

      broad discretion when appointing and removing guardians, and their
      decisions will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of that
      discretion. Id., In re Guardianship of Skrobut, 7th Dist. Mahoning No.
      97CA18 (Apr. 30, 1998).

Matter of Guardianship of Keane, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 19 CA 0934, 2020-Ohio-1105, ¶
64-65.

      {¶19} An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its judgment “in an
unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson
v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35.

      We have previously recognized that “(t)he credibility of the parties and other
      witnesses (is) a matter for the trier of fact as there may (be) ‘much evidence
      in the parties’ demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record
      well.’” Matter of T.M.M., 7th Dist. No. 17 CO 0025, 2017-Ohio-9219, 102
      N.E.3d 558, ¶ 42, citing Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418-419,
      674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997) (fact-finder had opportunity to view the witnesses
      and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections and to use
      these observations in weighing credibility).

Matter of Guardianship of Keane, supra, at ¶ 67.

      {¶20} R.C. 2111.13, “Duties of guardian of person,” states in part:

      (A) When a guardian is appointed to have the custody and maintenance of
      a ward, * * * the guardian’s duties are as follows:

      (1) To protect and control the person of the ward;

      (2) To provide suitable maintenance for the ward when necessary, which
      shall be paid out of the estate of such ward upon the order of the guardian
      of the person;

      ***

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                       –7–

       (4) To obey all the orders and judgments of the probate court touching the
       guardianship.

R.C. 2111.13(A)(1)-(2) and (4).

       {¶21} The resolution of whether Appellant was misappropriating the Ward’s funds
centered on the believability of the testimony at the hearing held on January 26, 2023
before the magistrate. See, e.g., Matter of Guardianship of Keane, supra, at ¶ 67.
       {¶22} Counsel for MCBDD testified to the following: the request for the status
hearing was based on information received from RaeArc that Appellant was delinquent in
paying for the residential services being provided to the Ward by RaeArc; there was a
delinquency of about seven months of unpaid residential services since the attorney for
MCBDD filed the report; as of the date of the hearing, there was a delinquency of one
month; the Ward’s spending account typically has a running balance of $150 which
Appellant has allowed it to deplete to a zero balance without replenishing it; in October
2020, Appellant was delinquent on the account for several months but the matter resolved
itself without court involvement; and Appellant has been difficult to contact and obtain her
presence for individual service plan meetings regarding the Ward and his care.
       {¶23} Appellant testified to the following: the Ward currently receives $991 per
month in Social Security benefits; monthly rent to RaeArc averages $550; utilities and
other incidentals average $300; she conceded she is guilty of not paying the Ward’s rent
and bills that came due from RaeArc on time; she alleged that writing checks is difficult
for her due to her busy work schedule; she paid the rent invoices via money orders
causing her to not know the checks had not been cashed by RaeArc; and said that she
communicates with RaeArc via text messaging.
       {¶24} Tisa Ewing and Shannon Arcade, both with RaeArc, testified to the
following: the Ward’s rent is $250; it takes Appellant weeks to respond to their messages;
and they did not believe the Ward was properly being taken care of by Appellant.
       {¶25} Appellant claims the probate court made no determination that she
committed malfeasance or misappropriation of the Ward’s funds. However, in its April
18, 2023 judgment, the court specifically found the following:

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                      –8–

      The Court finds that the Guardian argues that the Magistrate erred in his
      decision by failing to find that the status of the Representative Payeeship
      lies with the Social Security Administration which appoints and may remove
      a Representative Payee if there is misappropriation of funds. The Court
      finds that on November 29, 2010 a Guardianship of the person only was
      issue[d]; however, the Court still retains jurisdiction over the Ward, the
      Ward’s estate, and as Superior Guardian pursuant to R.C. 2111.50 has to
      be sure that the Ward’s best interest is cared for. During the course of the
      hearing, evidence was presented where the Court found that the Guardian
      was not acting in the best interest of the Ward. Specifically, there was
      uncontested testimony provided to the Court that: (1.) the Guardian at one
      point in time was delinquent for approximately seven (7) months of unpaid
      residential services for the Ward and that the Guardian was receiving the
      Ward’s Social Security income; and (2.) the Guardian allowed the Ward’s
      spending account to deplete to a zero (0) balance without replenishing it.
      Based upon those two (2) factors, the Court found that the Guardian was
      not acting in the best interest of the Ward. Therefore, as Superior Guardian,
      the Court found that it was necessary to institute a Guardian of the Estate
      and Ordered Help Network of Northeast Ohio to apply to become the Ward’s
      Representative Payee and to place the funds in the Mahoning County
      Payeeship Program so that the Ward’s residential provider is paid timely
      and the Ward has access to funds for his spending account when needed.

      ***

      The Court found that it was unnecessary to precisely reflect or account for
      specific dates and amounts for which the Guardian failed to timely pay
      RaeArc Industries Inc. based upon the fact that the Guardian during her
      testimony admitted to the Court that she was guilty of not paying the
      invoices timely. The testimony provided by the Guardian showed that April,
      May and June of 2022 remained unpaid until the Guardian paid with a check

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                         –9–

       dated December 22, 2022 thereby making payment seven (7) months
       delinquent.

       ***

       Uncontroverted testimony as well as admission by the Guardian herself
       showed that the Guardian failed to pay the Ward’s residential service
       provider on a timely basis and allowed his spending account to deplete to
       zero (0) without replenishment in a reasonable time period.

       ***

       The Guardian through her own testimony admitted to paying multiple
       months of invoices on one money order. The Court finds that the Guardian
       voluntarily chose to use money orders instead of a check which would have
       resulted in quicker and timelier payments. Whether or not an invoice
       reflected a past due amount was irrelevant based upon testimony and the
       fact that the Ward’s rent was not being paid in a timely fashion which the
       Guardian knew was due monthly.

(Emphasis sic.) (4/18/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 2-4).

       {¶26} Thus, the probate court addressed misappropriation and determined that
Appellant mismanaged the Ward’s funds by not timely paying the Ward’s rent nor
providing him with money so that he may purchase personal items. The record supports
the court’s finding. As a result, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Help
Network apply to become the Ward’s representative payee for his Social Security
benefits.
       {¶27} Appellant claims federal law preempts state law in the selection of
representative payees for Social Security benefits.        Specifically, Appellant refers to
Section 1383, Title 42, U.S. Code, which governs the procedure for the payment of
benefits and imposes liability on a representative payee for the misuse of funds.
       {¶28} Several courts have rejected arguments similar to those made by Appellant
herein. See State v. Wallace, 160 Ohio App.3d 528, 2005-Ohio-1746, ¶ 15, 17, 20

Case No. 23 MA 0065
                                                                                     – 10 –

(regarding a representative payee for Social Security benefits and the misuse of funds,
state law was not preempted by federal law); Id. at ¶ 17.            In Faith v. Caldwell
(Tenn.App.1996), 944 S.W.2d 607, the court found that the state court had jurisdiction in
an action for misappropriation of Social Security benefits. The court recognized that the
Social Security Act provides that ‘a court of competent jurisdiction’ may determine that a
representative payee has misused an individual’s benefit and that the federal statutes
and regulations contain no language indicating an intent to preempt state court
jurisdiction. Id. at 610–611; see also, Catlett v. Miller (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 1, 561
N.E.2d 948 (finding state court jurisdiction over action alleging misappropriation of Social
Security benefits).
       {¶29} Accordingly, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that Appellant mismanaged the Ward’s funds and ordering that Help Network apply to
become the Ward’s representative payee for his Social Security benefits as federal law
does not preempt state law in this instance.
       {¶30} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are without merit.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶31} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are not well-
taken. The April 18, 2023 judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas,
Probate Division, overruling Appellant’s objections and adopting the March 10, 2023
magistrate’s decision is affirmed.

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, P.J., concurs.

Case No. 23 MA 0065
[Cite as In re Guardianship of Robinson, 2024-Ohio-942.]

         For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error
 are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of
 the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed.
 Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.
         A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                       NOTICE TO COUNSEL

         This document constitutes a final judgment entry.