Court Opinion

ID: 9891441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 16:10:26.892901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:21.568789
License: Public Domain

J-A20045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: H.T., AN             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: H.T.                              :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1675 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Orphans' Court at
                            No(s): 2021-00184

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                FILED OCTOBER 18, 2023

       Appellant is Henry S. Thompson, an incapacitated person. Appellee is

Andrew B. Thompson, son and legal guardian of Appellant. This appeal is from

the decree entered on November 10, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas of

Lackawanna County Orphans’ Court, which dismissed as frivolous Appellant’s

Petition for Review and Change in Guardian and denied Appellant’s Request

for Declaratory Judgment and Fee Approval. We affirm.

       The facts and procedural history, as set forth by the trial court, are

reproduced below:

            [Henry Thompson] is a 72-year-old man who lives alone in
       an apartment in Scranton, Pennsylvania. [Mr. Thompson] suffers
       from alcoholism and short-term memory impairment and a
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20045-23

     number of other serious medical conditions, including congestive
     heart failure and a past history of stroke and heart attacks. Report
     of Dr. Richard Fischbein (Fischbein Report) at 13-14, 18, 21; N.T.,
     2/11/21, at 8, 20. [Mr. Thompson] has two adult children, Son,
     who lives in California, and a daughter who lives in the
     Netherlands (Daughter). N.T., 2/11/21, at 5, 56; N.T., 5/4/21, at
     19, 25. [Mr. Thompson] and his wife have been separated for 12
     years and his wife lives in the Netherlands. N.T., 5/4/21, at 19,
     26. In July 2020, [Mr. Thompson] gave Son a power of attorney
     and gave Son, Daughter, and an attorney a jointly held health
     care power of attorney. N.T., 2/11/21, at 5, 24-25.

            In or about early February 2021, Son filed an emergency
     petition seeking an adjudication that [Mr. Thompson] is an
     incapacitated person under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511 and seeking
     appointment of himself as plenary guardian of the person and
     estate of [Mr. Thompson]. The Orphans' Court, on February 8,
     2021, appointed Son temporary plenary guardian of [Mr.
     Thompson's] person and estate and appointed counsel to
     represent [Mr. Thompson]. Orphans' Court Order, 2/8/21. On
     February 11, 2021, the Orphans' Court held a hearing on the
     guardianship petition at which Son, Daughter, and an expert
     witness, Vincent Carolan, testified. [Mr. Thompson] was not at the
     hearing, but was represented by his appointed counsel, who had
     not yet been able to talk to him. N.T., 2/11/21, at 3-4.

            Son testified that when he obtained the power of attorney,
     [Mr. Thompson] was living in unsanitary conditions, in his own
     urine and feces, and that he had [Mr. Thompson's] apartment
     fumigated and cleaned and hired a person to be with [Mr.
     Thompson] 10 hours a day to help [Mr. Thompson] with getting
     dressed, personal hygiene, taking his medications, and other
     activities, and to cook meals for [Mr. Thompson]. N.T., 2/11/21,
     at 6-11, 28-30. Son testified that [Mr. Thompson] is on 12
     different medications and does not take them properly except
     under the caregiver's supervision and that [Mr. Thompson] had
     been hospitalized more than six times in the last year. Id. at 10-
     11, 22, 31. Son testified that although he was able to work with
     [Mr. Thompson's] doctors through the power of attorney, [Mr.
     Thompson] does not understand his medical conditions and
     sometimes communicates with his doctors without letting Son
     know. Id. at 27, 30. Son also testified that [Mr. Thompson] drives
     a car despite not having a valid driver's license. Id. at 10.

                                    -2-
J-A20045-23

            In addition, Son testified that after he became [Mr.
     Thompson's] power of attorney, he learned that [Mr. Thompson]
     was not opening his mail and paying his bills and that [Mr.
     Thompson] had unpaid federal taxes of over $400,000, which Son
     paid. N.T., 2/11/21, at 6, 29. Son testified that [Mr. Thompson]
     was making very frequent wire transfers in amounts of $500 to
     $3,000 or more to people who solicited him online and that [Mr.
     Thompson] did not understand the frequency or the total amount
     of these transfers, which exceeded $500,000. Id. at 11-19; Exs.
     2, 3, 4. Son testified that he understood and was willing to accept
     the responsibilities of guardianship Id. at 32. Daughter testified
     that she communicates frequently with [Mr. Thompson] by phone
     and text message and that she did not object to Son being
     appointed as guardian for [Mr. Thompson]. Id. at 56-57.

           Carolan, who was a licensed clinical social worker and
     alcohol and drug counselor and was not a physician or licensed
     psychologist, testified as an expert in alcohol addiction and
     medication mismanagement. N.T., 2/11/21, at 34, 38-39, 55; Ex.
     1 at 1. Carolan did not meet or speak with or perform any tests
     on [Mr. Thompson] and based his opinions on his review of [Mr.
     Thompson's] medical records and interviews with Son, a longtime
     friend of [Mr. Thompson], and [Mr. Thompson’s] caregiver. Id. at
     38, 40-41, 50-52. Carolan testified that, in his opinion,
     medications that [Mr. Thompson] was taking had a significant risk
     of catastrophic results, especially if taken in combination with
     alcohol, and in combination with alcohol, would cause [Mr.
     Thompson] to be unable to recall things he has done and decisions
     he has made. Id. at 42-46, 49. Carolan opined that [Mr.
     Thompson] was not capable of independent living and lacks the
     capacity to take care of himself and to make important decisions.
     Id. at 44-48.

           Following this hearing, the Orphans' Court entered an order
     making a final adjudication that [Mr. Thompson] is an
     incapacitated person and appointing Son as plenary guardian of
     [Mr. Thompson's] person and estate. Orphans' Court Order,
     2/12/21. On or about March 1, 2021, [Mr. Thompson] through
     new counsel, petitioned for orders authorizing the retaining of new
     counsel for [Mr. Thompson] and the retaining of a psychiatrist, Dr.
     Richard Fischbein, to conduct an evaluation of [Mr. Thompson].
     Following a hearing on March 5, 2021, the Orphans' Court
     rescinded the February 12, 2021 guardianship order and entered
     orders reappointing Son as temporary emergency guardian of [Mr.
     Thompson's] person and estate and granting [Mr. Thompson's]

                                    -3-
J-A20045-23

     petition for new counsel and for retention of Dr. Fischbein to
     perform an evaluation of him. N.T., 3/5/21, at 17-19; Orphans'
     Court Rescinding Order, 3/5/21; Orphans' Court Temporary
     Guardianship Order, 3/5/21; Orphans’ Court Order, 3/9/21.

           On May 4, 2021, the Orphans' Court held a final hearing on
     Son's guardianship petition. At this hearing, which [Mr.
     Thompson] attended, the parties stipulated to the admission of
     Dr. Fischbein's report of his evaluation of [Mr. Thompson], Son
     gave additional testimony, and [Mr. Thompson's] counsel read a
     statement prepared by [Mr. Thompson].

           Dr. Fischbein reported that he based his evaluation and
     opinions on his in-person interview of [Mr. Thompson], interviews
     of Son, the caregiver, and two longtime friends of [Mr.
     Thompson], and review of the testimony from the February 2021
     hearing, [Mr. Thompson's] medical records, and other documents.
     Fischbein Report at 1-20. Dr. Fischbein concluded that [Mr.
     Thompson] suffers from permanent short-term memory
     impairment caused by his alcoholism and that his insight and
     judgment are so limited that he needs 24-hour, 7-days-a-week
     supervision and care. Id. at 21-24. Dr. Fischbein opined that [Mr.
     Thompson] needed a permanent plenary guardian of both his
     person and his estate and that his need for guardianship was
     unlikely to change. Id. at 21, 23.

           Son testified that since his appointment as temporary
     guardian, he had arranged for round-the-clock in-home care for
     [Mr. Thompson] and that [Mr. Thompson] needed such care and
     had benefited from it. N.T., 5/4/21, at 8-11. testified that he
     travels to Pennsylvania for [Mr. Thompson's] medical
     appointments and is able and willing to travel to Pennsylvania on
     short notice Id. at 11-12. Son also testified that permanent rather
     than temporary guardianship was need [sic] for the guardianship
     to be fully recognized in the Netherlands, where some of [Mr.
     Thompson's] assets are. Id. at 15-19.

           In the statement read to the court by his counsel, [Mr.
     Thompson] expressed appreciation for the efforts that Son had
     made to obtain assistance for him in his home and for the
     caregivers that Son had hired. N.T., 5/4/21, at 32, 36, 38. While
     [Mr. Thompson] requested that the court order only a 90-day
     extension of the temporary guardianship or a limited
     guardianship, he stated that he preferred for Son to be his
     guardian. Id. at 35-38. Following his counsel's reading of the

                                    -4-
J-A20045-23

     statement, [Mr. Thompson] confirmed that the statement
     accurately reflected his wishes and feelings. Id. at 42.

           On May 12, 2021, following this hearing, the Orphans' Court
     entered an order adjudicating [Mr. Thompson] incapacitated and
     in need of a plenary guardian of his person and estate and
     appointing Son as the plenary guardian of [Mr. Thompson's]
     person and estate. Orphans' Court Order, 5/12/21. On June 9,
     2021, [Mr. Thompson] timely appealed.

     In re Guardianship of H.T., case no. 747 MDA 2021,
     Memorandum Decision at 1-6 (Pa. Super. August 25, 2022).

           While this appeal was pending, on October 20, 2021, Henry
     Thompson filed a Petition for a Review Hearing and Termination
     of Guardianship. On November 12, 2021, the guardian filed an
     Answer and Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Review Hearing and
     Termination of Guardianship. On November 16, 2021, [the trial
     court] entered an order, granting the guardian's Motion to Dismiss
     the Petition for Review Hearing and Termination of Guardianship
     since the case was pending in the Superior Court following an
     appeal by Henry Thompson, and [the] court lacked jurisdiction
     pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701.

            On November 17, 2021, Richard Bishop, Mr. Thompson's
     attorney for the guardianship proceedings, filed a Petition for
     Approval to File Divorce Proceedings in the Netherlands on behalf
     of Henry Thompson. On November 17, 2021, [the trial court]
     entered an order, denying the petition since the court lacked
     jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701.

            On November 23, 2021, Henry Thompson filed a Motion for
     Reconsideration of the court's November 16, 2021 order, granting
     the guardian's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Review Hearing
     and Termination of Guardianship, and asserted that the trial court
     had jurisdiction to proceed to hear the Petition for Review Hearing,
     as well as the Petition for Approval to File Divorce Proceedings and
     the Petition to Compel Payment of Legal Fees since failure to
     proceed would run contrary to the PEF Code and the purpose of
     its provisions. On November 23, 2021, [the trial court] entered an
     order, denying Mr. Thompson's motion for reconsideration since
     the court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701, and
     contrary to his assertions, the issues raised in the appeal are the
     same issues raised in the Petition for a Review Hearing and
     Termination of Guardianship.

                                    -5-
J-A20045-23

           On December 17, 2021, Henry Thompson filed another
     Notice of Appeal, this time of [the trial court]’s November 16, 2021
     order, granting the guardian's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for
     Review Hearing and Termination of Guardianship. On March 18,
     2022, the Superior Court quashed this appeal.

           On March 2, 2022, Henry Thompson filed a Petition to
     Engage Psychologist, and on March 4, 2022, the guardian filed an
     Answer. On March 24, 2022, [the trial court] entered an order,
     denying Mr. Thompson's Petition to Engage Psychologist since the
     court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701, and because
     expenditure of funds to hire another expert after the court
     appointed Dr. Fischbein at Mr. Thompson's specific request would
     be an unwarranted waste of the assets of the Estate.

            On April 5, 2022, Henry Thompson filed a Petition to File
     Account, and on April 13, 2022, the guardian filed an Answer. On
     May 16, 2022, a hearing was held and the court entered an order
     denying the Petition to File Account since the court lacked
     jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701, but noting that a complete
     and thorough Report of the Guardian had been filed as required
     by law on May 10, 2022.

           On August 25, 2022, the Superior Court affirmed [the trial]
     court's May 12, 2021 order, adjudicating Mr. Thompson
     incapacitated and ordering a plenary guardianship of his person
     and estate, and appointing Andrew Thompson as his guardian.
     The Superior Court found that, contrary to Mr. Thompson's
     contentions, the record supported [the trial court]'s determination
     that a plenary guardian, rather than a limited guardianship, was
     necessary, and that his son's providing of caregivers did not
     eliminate the need for plenary guardianship since Dr. Fischbein's
     opinions were based on his evaluation of Mr. Thompson's condition
     after he was already receiving care, and the round-the-clock care
     and supervision were the result of his son's plenary guardianship.
     The court also found that contrary to Mr. Thompson's assertions
     that his son should not be his guardian because he lives too far
     away and their relationship is hostile, [the trial court] did not
     abuse its discretion in selecting his son as guardian.

           On September 26, 2022, Mr. Thompson filed a Petition for
     Review, Change in Guardians, Request for a Declaratory
     Judgment, and Request to Authorize Payment of Fees Incurred for
     Services Provided Pursuant to Attorney Bishop's Outreach to
     Attorneys to Aid Henry. On October 12, 2022, Andrew Thompson

                                    -6-
J-A20045-23

      filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Review and Termination
      of Guardianship as Frivolous. On October 18, 2022, Henry
      Thompson filed an Answer to the Motion to Dismiss. On October
      26, 2022, Andrew Thompson filed an Answer to the Petition for
      Review, Change in Guardians, Declaratory Judgment and Fee
      Payment Approval. On November 10, 2022, [the trial court]
      entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing Henry Thompson's
      Petition for Review and Change in Guardians, and denying the
      Request for a Declaratory Judgment and Request to Authorize
      Payment of Fees Incurred for Services Provided Pursuant to
      Attorney Bishop's Outreach to Attorneys to Aid Henry. The order
      also clarified that Mr. Bishop's representation of Mr. Thompson
      had been approved for the guardianship proceedings only.

            On November 30, 2022, counsel for Henry Thompson
      emailed [the trial court] a proposed Decree and Petition to
      Withdraw or Suspend the November 10, 2022 Memorandum and
      Order. This petition was not filed, and before the court could
      schedule a hearing on it, on December 7, 2022, Henry Thompson
      filed a Notice of Appeal. Mr. Thompson filed the Petition to
      Withdraw or Suspend on January 3, 2023.

            On December 12, 2022, [the trial court] ordered Mr.
      Thompson to file a Concise Statement of the Matters Complained
      of on Appeal within 21 days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On
      December 29, 2022 Mr. Thompson filed a Concise Statement of
      Matters Complained of on Appeal.

Tr. Ct. 1925(a) Op. at 1-7.

      Appellant raises one issue for review: “Whether the trial court erred in

dismissing the Petition for Review and Change in Guardian as frivolous and

denying the Request for Declaratory Judgment and Fee Approval filed by

Henry Thompson without a hearing?” Appellant’s Br. at 4. We view this issue

as two-fold and will first address whether the trial court erred in dismissing

the Petition for Review and Change in Guardian as frivolous; then we address

                                    -7-
J-A20045-23

whether the trial court erred in denying the Request for Declaratory Judgment

and Fee Approval.

   A. Dismissing Petition as Frivolous

      Appellant argues that he no longer exhibits the behavior pattern that

led to the finding of incapacity resulting in the guardianship, and thus he seeks

to modify the scope of a guardian if one is still necessary, change guardians,

consult his own lawyers, and pursue his own financial strategies. Appellant’s

Br. at 17-19, 22. Specifically, Appellant asserts that his condition has

improved over the past two years since the guardianship was imposed,

Appellant’s Br. at 16; that Son has failed to honor Appellant’s wishes and has

had little contact with Appellant, Id.; Son has refused Appellant’s request for

financial information and for a new evaluation, Id. at 16, 18; Responsible

Party Services, Inc. (“RPS”) has consented to be Appellant’s new guardian,

Id. at 18; Appellant has an interest in pursuing financial strategies and is in a

position to make investment recommendations, Id.;           that only a limited

guardianship is necessary, Id. at 19; Appellant had been denied from

engaging a psychologist for another evaluation, Id. at 23; and that Appellant

has been deprived of his free will as his requests have been ignored. Id. at

24.

      Appellee, Son, argues that Appellant’s Petition contains no allegation

that his health care requirements are not being met, Appellee’s Br. at 11; that

any request of Appellant’s the court “ignored” was because the court did not

                                      -8-
J-A20045-23

have jurisdiction, Id. at 12; that Son manages Appellant’s financial affairs,

health issues, and home life at no charge, Id. at 18; and that any of

Appellant’s intents or wishes that have not been honored by Son are strategies

employed to protect Appellant’s finances. Id. at 19.

      Our standard of appellate review of an orphans’ court decree employs a

deferential standard. In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359, 362

(Pa.Super. 2012). However, we must ensure that the court's decision is free

from legal error. In re Estate of Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249, 1253

(Pa.Super. 2005). Our Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that

reviewing courts are “bound by the trial judge's finding of facts unless the

findings are not based on competent evidence. Conclusions of law, however,

are not binding on an appellate court whose duty it is to determine whether

there was a proper application of law to fact by the lower court.” In re Peery,

727 A.2d 539, 540 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted).

      Therefore, “the orphans' court decision will not be reversed unless there

has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying the correct

principles of law.” In re Estate of Leipold, 208 A.3d 507, 510 (Pa.Super.

2019) (citations omitted and some formatting altered). “An abuse of discretion

exists when the trial court has rendered judgment that is manifestly

unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was

motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” In re Duran, 769 A.2d

497, 506 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citation omitted).

                                     -9-
J-A20045-23

      Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2(a):

      The court may set a date for a review hearing in its order
      establishing the guardianship or hold a review hearing at any time
      it shall direct. The court shall conduct a review hearing promptly
      if the incapacitated person, guardian or any interested party
      petitions the court for a hearing for reason of a significant change
      in the person's capacity, a change in the need for guardianship
      services or the guardian's failure to perform his duties in
      accordance with the law or to act in the best interest of the
      incapacitated person. The court may dismiss a petition for review
      hearing if it determines that the petition is frivolous.

20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2. That section was clarified by In re Estate of

Rosengarten, a case on which Appellant heavily relies: “We first hold that if

an allegation of competency is made, the orphans' court must immediately

proceed to either make a determination of frivolity based on sound

evidence or logic or hold a review hearing.” Rosengarten, 871 A.2d at 1255

(emphasis added).

      In the Rosengarten case, this Court held that the orphans’ court

violated 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2(a)because it failed to conduct the requested

review hearing, explore if a new guardian should be appointed, and examine

if the guardian was acting in the best interest of the incapacitated “without

making the requisite determination of frivolity.” Rosengarten, 871

A.2d at 1254 (emphasis added). In the instant case, the trial court did not

hold a review hearing but did make a determination of frivolity in the order in

question, and thus did not violate 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2(a) unless that

                                     - 10 -
J-A20045-23

determination was made with no “[basis in] sound evidence or logic” pursuant

to Rosengarten.

        To decide if the determination of frivolity was an error of law or abuse

of discretion, we closely examined the allegations in the petition and support

in the record. The record contains sufficient evidence that Appellant’s severe

health concerns warrant plenary guardianship, as found by the trial court and

affirmed by this Court. In re Guardianship of H.T., case no. 747 MDA 2021,

Memorandum Decision at 12 (Pa. Super. August 25, 2022).

        Appellant’s allegations of a significant change in Appellant’s capacity

presented in his Petition for Review are insufficient as the record contains no

evidence that those concerns have changed at all, and moreover, significantly.

Dr. Fischbein concluded that Appellant suffers from permanent short-term

memory impairment caused by his alcoholism and that his insight and

judgment are so limited that he needs constant supervision and care.

Fischbein Report at 21-24. Appellant baldly asserts, “Since the time that Henry

was declared to be totally incapacitated, Henry no longer exhibits the behavior

pattern which (Henry assumes) led to Andrew’s filing of a Petition for

Guardianship which resulted in the Guardianship Decree.” Petition for Review

¶ 12.

        The record reflects Dr. Fischbein’s findings that Appellant’s need for

guardianship was unlikely to change, and neither the record nor the Petition

                                      - 11 -
J-A20045-23

for Review contain a scintilla of evidence that Appellant’s medical status has

changed. As the court below pointed out, Appellant

       did not request or provide any confirmation from his doctors that
       his health or need for care has changed, nor did he assert that the
       guardian failed to provide him with medical information, nor did
       he request that the court order the guardian to provide him with
       medical information. In fact, a review of Mr. Bishop's bills reveals
       that no medical information was even requested until after the
       guardian filed the motion to dismiss his petition for failure to
       include any medical basis or confirmation of a change in
       circumstances since Dr. Fischbein's evaluation and determination.

Tr. Ct. 1925(a) Op. at 10. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err or

abuse its discretion in making the determination of frivolity, and that it based

its decision on sound logic and evidence supported by the record.1

       This case is distinguishable from Rosengarten. In that case, the

appellant had bipolar disorder and she was adjudicated incapacitated after she

stopped taking her medicine. This Court opined,

       In the instant case, the initial determination of incapacity was
       based upon the fact that Ms. Rosengarten suffered from bipolar
       disorder but was not taking her medication. By necessary
       implication, if she had started to take her medication properly, it

____________________________________________

1 Appellant points out factual disagreements between Appellant’s Petition for

Review and Appellee’s Answer to Petition for Review, Appellant’s Br. at 17-19,
and states, “despite these numerous factual disputes, the Court did not hold
a hearing and summarily dismissed the Petition as frivolous. It is axiomatic
that these factual disputes are properly decided in a hearing . . . .” Appellant’s
Br. at 19. We note that the standard for determining the Petition was frivolous
is “based on sound evidence or logic” and not the absence of issues of fact. In
making the determination that the Petition was frivolous, the court did not
need to, and indeed did not, make any factual determinations that affect the
status of any of Appellant’s rights.

                                          - 12 -
J-A20045-23

      would follow that a review hearing would be in order, certainly
      before her assets were disposed of against her wishes.

Rosengarten, 871 A.2d at 1255. Here, however, Appellant’s evaluation

revealed that his memory impairment is “permanent” and his need for

guardianship was “unlikely to change,” so on these facts this Court cannot

determine by implication that an allegation of change in capacity would

preclude a facial determination of frivolity.

      Appellant states that the various rulings from the Court have

      placed Mr. Thompson in a position from which it is impossible to
      escape from the yoke of guardianship. The Petition for Review was
      dismissed in part on the basis that Mr. Thompson has failed to
      produce medical evidence of a change in circumstances. However,
      when petitioned by Mr. Thompson to obtain permission to engage
      a highly qualified and credentialed psychologist . . . to do just that,
      the court denied same due to purported lack of jurisdiction and
      the court's determination that the expenditure of sums to higher
      yet another expert . . . would be unwarranted waste of the assets
      of the estate.

Appellant’s Br. at 23 (internal citations omitted).

      Appellant concludes the court demands medical evidence of a change in

circumstances while simultaneously preventing Appellant from being seen by

anyone who could provide medical evidence. We disagree. This Appellant had

already specifically petitioned the court to retain psychiatrist Dr. Richard

Fischbein as Appellant’s expert. The court granted the petition and ordered

Dr. Fischbein, Appellant’s doctor of choice, to conduct the evaluation of

Appellant, Orphans’ Court Order, 3/9/21, and the court relied on Dr.

Fischbein’s testimony in making its determination of incapacity. Why Appellant

                                      - 13 -
J-A20045-23

would rather another doctor now instead of his first choice is irrelevant; the

court below determined that, in addition to lacking jurisdiction, it would be a

waste of estate assets for Appellant to retain a new doctor, and we find no

abuse of discretion. If Appellant’s medical status has improved significantly

enough to warrant a new medical analysis that could result in new findings,

Appellant can obtain that analysis from the expert he requested as his first

choice, and petition the trial court for review of those findings while that court

has jurisdiction.

      Further, Appellant’s Petition for Review alleges that “at this time, [Son]

is an inappropriate person to control Henry’s financial activities or take control

of Henry’s personal life.” Petition for Review ¶ 16. Appellant cites as evidence

of a need of change in guardian that “[Son] has had very little personal contact

with Henry, has disregarded Henry's wishes and has prevented Henry from

receiving   financial   information    upon    which    he   could    make    his

recommendations.” Petition for Review ¶ 22.

      Appellant now suggests RPS be appointed to serve as his guardian.

Petition for Review ¶ 19. Son argues that this organization would take

payment from the corpus of Appellant’s estate when Son has provided these

services to Appellant free of charge. Appellee’s Answer to Petition for Review

¶ 19. “A person of ordinary prudence would not pay someone $ 195 an hour

to deliver items, assemble furniture, and shop. A person of ordinary prudence

would not pay someone for services when a qualified relative offers to perform

                                      - 14 -
J-A20045-23

the function free of charge.” In re Estate of Rosengarten, 871 A.2d at 1256.

The choice of guardian lies within the sound discretion of the trial court,

Coulter Estate, 178 A.2d 742, 747 (Pa. 1962), and we find no abuse of that

discretion. Therefore, we affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the Petition for

Review and Change in Guardian.

   B. Denying Request for Declaratory Relief and Fee Approval

        Appellant’s Petition for Review contained a request for Declaratory

Judgment. Appellant engaged a number of attorneys without the knowledge

or approval of his guardian, and had seven “Estate Planning Documents”

prepared including a will and powers of attorney. Petition for Review ¶ 26.

        Specifically, Appellant states, “Henry seeks to have the court determine

that,   even    though   Henry    was    adjudicated   totally   incapacitated   for

guardianship purposes under 20 Pa.C.S. §5501, on August 3, 2022, when

Henry signed the Estate Planning Documents, Henry had testamentary

capacity as ‘testamentary capacity’ is defined under controlling Pennsylvania

case law.” Petition for Review ¶ 29. The trial court denied this request.

               When reviewing a declaratory judgment, our Supreme Court
        has determined that appellate courts in this jurisdiction are limited
        to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of
        discretion or an error of law. An appellate court may not substitute
        its judgment for that of the trial court if the determination of the
        trial court is supported by competent evidence. In further
        clarifying the principles that we must apply when reviewing a
        declaratory judgment, we have explained the following.

                                        - 15 -
J-A20045-23

           When reviewing the determination of the trial court in
           a declaratory judgment action, our scope of review is
           narrow. As declaratory judgment actions follow the
           practice and procedure of an action in equity, we will
           review the determination of the court below as we
           would a decree in equity and set aside the factual
           conclusions of the trial court only where they are not
           supported by adequate evidence. However, when
           reviewing an issue of law in a declaratory judgment
           action, our scope of review is plenary and our
           standard of review is de novo.

In re Estate of Snyder, 13 A.3d 509, 512 (Pa.Super. 2011) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

            [E]vidence of incapacity for a reasonable time before and
     after the making of a will is admissible as an indication of lack of
     capacity on the day the will is executed. An adjudication of mental
     incompetency near the date of execution of a will does not
     necessarily prove lack of testamentary capacity. Where a person
     is adjudicated a mental incompetent and thereafter executes a
     will, the burden is shifted to the proponent of the will to show by
     clear and convincing evidence that at the time the will was made
     such person possessed testamentary capacity.

Estate of Vanoni, 798 A.2d 203, 207 (Pa.Super. 2002).

     As evidence of testamentary capacity, Appellant asserts that (1)

Appellant was made aware that the broad definition of “testamentary

capacity” includes knowing the natural objects of one’s bounty, having a

general knowledge of assets one is able to convey, and knowing how and to

whom one wishes to make those conveyances, Petition for Review ¶ 50, and

(2) that an attorney informed Appellant that the attorney believed Appellant

had testamentary capacity. Petition for Review ¶ 51.

                                    - 16 -
J-A20045-23

       The trial court stated in its November 10, 2022 memorandum

accompanying the order at issue on this appeal,

       Mr. Thompson has not provided any medical support for this
       assertion, and the court is not in any position to make this
       determination. Mr. Thompson has really put the cart before the
       horse here in asking this court, that has found him to be totally
       incapacitated, to look back to a date three months ago, and
       somehow determine that on that date, he had testamentary
       capacity. The court will not do this, and therefore any estate
       documents signed by Mr. Thompson on that date are presumed to
       be invalid since Mr. Thompson was legally totally incapacitated on
       that date.

Tr. Ct. Memo, 11/10/22 at 13. The court below found that Appellant did not

overcome this burden by clear and convincing evidence, and we agree. There

is evidence that Appellant was provided the definition of testamentary

capacity, but no evidence that he acknowledged that he understood the

definition, let alone evidence submitted that Appellant actually possesses a

clear understanding of the natural objects of his bounty, his assets, and his

intent for conveyances. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of

law.

       Appellant further requested that the court authorize payment of fees to

the attorneys who prepared the documents who were engaged by Appellant’s

court-appointed counsel. Petition for Review at 6-8. A discussion of additional

facts and procedural history are necessary here:

       On May 4, 2021, the hearing was held that resulted in the May 12, 2021

Final Guardianship Decree. At that hearing, the trial court said it expected

                                     - 17 -
J-A20045-23

compliance with “not only the letter of the order but the spirit of the order

that is being entered.” N.T., 5/4/21 at 53. Contained in the resulting order is

the authority to hire lawyers which is left entirely to Son. Orphans’ Court

Order, 5/16/21 ¶ 24.

      There has also been litigation concerning the payment of Mr.
      Bishop's legal fees and costs. On November 12, 2021, Mr. Bishop
      filed a Petition to Compel Payment of his Legal Fees and Costs,
      asserting that while the guardian had paid his legal fees through
      June 30, 2021, he had not been paid since due to questions
      concerning some of his actions on behalf of Mr. Thompson. On
      December 9, 2021, the guardian filed an answer to Mr. Bishop's
      Petition to Compel Payment of his Legal Fees and Costs and a
      Cross-Motion for removal of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn as counsel
      for Henry S. Thompson, asserting that there were fees related to
      real estate development and other activities interfering with the
      guardian's duties. On January 19, 2022, this court entered an
      order, granting the Petition to Compel Payment of his Legal Fees
      and Costs, but ordering that future legal fees generated by
      professional services in pursuit of business ventures first be
      approved by the guardian.

Tr. Ct. Memo, 11/10/22 at 5 n.1. On May 16, 2022, upon the guardian’s

speculation that third party attorneys were drafting documents for Appellant,

the court stated on the record,

      Next, if an attorney is sitting down and preparing legal documents
      for somebody who is under a court determination of being
      incapacitated, then let that fool go and waste his money and his
      time because the attorney has an obligation to be certain that an
      individual has the capacity to do what they are purporting to do.

N.T., 5/16/22 at 12.

      The Appellant continued to “somehow unilaterally engage several

attorneys without notice or consultation with the guardian” to redo Appellant’s

estate plan, and then refused to share the Estate Planning Documents with

                                    - 18 -
J-A20045-23

the guardian. Appellee’s Br. at 6-7. The record shows that the same individuals

and attorneys engaged by Mr. Bishop to prepare these documents were aware

of Appellant’s incapacitation and the trial court’s orders. See Petition for

Review ¶¶ 58 (stating that the attorney who prepared the documents was

“aware of the skepticism reflected in the transcript of proceedings on May 16,

2022, by Judge Geroulo.”); see also Petition for Review Ex. 1.

      Appellant now seeks that the attorney’s fees be approved for those

services. The trial court stated,

      Mr. Bishop and those estate attorneys continued working on and
      billing for preparation of estate documents after that hearing.
      Their efforts were not authorized by the guardian or the court and
      were undertaken by them at their own risk. The fees for their
      services will not be approved.

Tr. Ct. Memo, 11/10/22 at 13.

      We find no abuse of discretion. Appellant signed the Estate Planning

Documents on August 3, 2022, Petition for Review ¶ 26, several months after

the court’s warning and without the guardian’s approval or notice. The trial

court further stated,

      This court has become increasingly concerned about the negative
      impact of excessive legal fees generated by Mr. Bishop and his law
      firm on the estate of Mr. Thompson. To date, the estate has paid
      Mr. Bishop and his law firm more than $158,000. There has been
      litigation over these fees because Mr. Bishop continues to perform
      legal work for Mr. Thompson that does not concern the
      guardianship proceedings, but has not been disclosed to the
      guardian and that interferes with the guardian 's ability to perform
      his duties. . . . The court had already entered an order on January
      19, 2022, admonishing Mr. Bishop that future legal fees generated

                                     - 19 -
J-A20045-23

      in pursuit of business ventures not first approved by the guardian
      would not be approved by the court.

Tr. Ct. 1925(a) Op. at 12. This Court is equally concerned by the actions taken

by Mr. Bishop and the other estate planning attorneys in contradiction of the

trial court’s orders.

      “A totally incapacitated person shall be incapable of making any contract

or gift or any instrument in writing.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 5524. The order at issue on

appeal states, “as specified in Mr. Bishop's engagement letter, Mr. Bishop's

representation of Henry Thompson is for these guardianship proceedings only,

and that he is not authorized to provide legal representation to Mr. Thompson

in any other matters.” Orphans’ Ct. Order, 11/10/22. Appellant contends that

this was an unjustified additional determination of an issue not before the

court that limited Mr. Bishop’s scope of representation. The court did not

abuse its discretion in making that decree because the court did not limit the

scope of representation; the court clarified what was in the fee agreement and

what the court had ordered. Mr. Bishop had been exceeding the scope of this

representation.

      This is unlike Rosengarten, which Appellant cites to suggest that it is

a violation of the guardian’s duties for Appellee to try “to deprive Mr.

Thompson of his right to counsel of his own choosing.” Appellant’s Br. at 21,

22. In that case, this Court found that the incapacitated had a right to

appointed counsel of choice, but we did not consider if any contract had been

                                    - 20 -
J-A20045-23

entered into by the incapacitated and thus rejected the argument that 20

Pa.C.S. § 5524 barred legal representation not agreed to by the guardian.

Rosengarten, 871 A.2d at 1257. We observed:

      First, we are not presently considering the validity of any contract
      entered by Ms. Rosengarten and [the attorney she engaged] and
      in fact, there is no evidence that one was made. Second, a
      contract entered into by an incapacitated person is merely
      presumed to be voidable, and this presumption is subject to
      rebuttal by proof that the person was not incapacitated[.]

Rosengarten, 871 A.2d at 1257. Here, however, the record contains

evidence that Appellant, who is totally incapacitated, attempted to enter into

a contract. Petition for Review ¶ 70-72, 26 (showing that services were

rendered by attorneys, Appellant was provided with billing statements for

those services, Appellant approves and wishes to have them satisfied, and

Appellant has signed documents rendered by these attorneys). This is not only

barred by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5524, but against the clear orders and warnings of the

trial court that are well documented throughout this litigation. Thus, we find

that the court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for declaratory relief

and request to authorize payment of fees, and the court did not abuse its

discretion in clarifying the scope of Mr. Bishop’s representation to reflect his

engagement letter.

      As such, because we discern no error or abuse of discretion in dismissing

Appellant's petition for review, we agree with the orphans‘ court that there

was no need for a review hearing. Accordingly, Appellant's claims fail.

                                     - 21 -
J-A20045-23

     Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2023

                           - 22 -