Court Opinion

ID: 9906630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 19:23:31.52356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:19.372596
License: Public Domain

J-A16022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  IN RE: M.D.A., AN ALLEGED                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  INCOMPETENT PERSON                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: M.D.A.                            :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1142 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                                  88000

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                       FILED DECEMBER 04, 2023

       M.D.A. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered on July 12, 2022, in

the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans’ Court Division,

adjudicating her to be an incapacitated person and appointing her son, J.D.

(“Son”), and his wife, K.L.D. (“Daughter-in-Law”) (collectively “Petitioners”),

as plenary co-guardians of her person and her estate.1 For the reasons set

forth below, we quash this appeal.

       This matter stems from a petition for the appointment of emergency co-

guardians of Mother’s person and her estate filed by Son and Daughter-in-Law

on December 10, 2021, pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5513.             Orphans’ Court

Opinion (“OCO”), 9/26/22, at 1. Mother was born in August of 1944 and has

____________________________________________

1 The order at issue is appealable as of right pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(5)

(“An appeal may be taken as of right from … orders of the Orphans’ Court
Division … determining the status of … guardianship[.]”).
J-A16022-23

resided at Phoebe Berks (“Phoebe”), a nursing care facility, since September

13, 2021. Id. Petitioners reside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Id. at 1-2.

Mother also has a daughter, K.D.-R. (“Daughter”), who resides in New York,

New York. Id.

      In May of 2021, Mother called Son and “cried that she needed help and

needed somebody to take charge.” Id. at 5. She was living in South Carolina

at the time.   Id.   A week later, Petitioners drove to South Carolina from

Pennsylvania. Id. When they arrived at Mother’s gated community, she could

not remember how to use the buzzer to open the gate. Id. Mother had lost

weight because she was not eating.      Id.   Her home was in a disheveled

condition, and she had placed post-it notes all over the house.    Id.   “Her

checkbook was in disarray. Many bills were unpaid even though she had the

money to pay them.” Id. at 6 (citation omitted). Since Mother was “stressed

out and frazzled,” Son brought her back to Pennsylvania to live with him and

his wife. Id. He told her that the arrangement was only temporary until her

affairs were in order. Id.

      On June 17, 2021, Mother signed a general power of attorney (“POA”),

appointing Petitioners as her agents.   Id. at 2.   In July of 2021, Son had

Mother evaluated by Chen Zhao, M.D., a neurologist. Id. at 2, 6. Dr. Zhao

determined that Mother suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and sleep

                                    -2-
J-A16022-23

disturbance. Id. at 2. She concluded that Mother was “incapacitated[2] and

unable to make informed decisions about her finances and healthcare. She

also opined that Mother should be in a secured facility for her safety and basic

needs.” Id.3 Based on Dr. Zhao’s evaluation, Son placed Mother in personal

care at Phoebe on September 13, 2021. Id. at 2, 6. See also id. at 6 (noting

Daughter informed Son that “if he did not want Mother, she would take her,”

but Son decided that was not a good idea).

       Petitioners allowed Daughter to take Mother for a one-week visit to her

home in New York over Thanksgiving 2021.           Id. at 2.    During that visit,

Daughter had Mother revoke her POA in favor of Petitioners and had her sign

a new POA in favor of Daughter. Id. “Daughter refused to return Mother to

Phoebe.” Id. Thus, on December 10, 2021, Petitioners filed a petition seeking

to be appointed as co-guardians of Mother and her estate, “to allow [them] to

____________________________________________

2 Chapter 55 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries (“PEF”) Code, 20 Pa.C.S.

§§ 101-8815, defines an incapacitated person as “an adult whose ability to
receive and evaluate information effectively and communicate decisions in any
way is impaired to such a significant extent that he is partially or totally unable
to manage his financial resources or to meet essential requirements for his
physical health and safety.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 5501.

3 We observe that Dr. Zhao’s expert report indicates Mother was “independent

in basic [activities of daily living,] though require[d] prompting to attend to
grooming” and recommends a “social worker to assist with home health
services info” for Mother’s physical health and safety. Petition, 12/10/21, at
Exhibit A (“Dr. Zhao’s Expert Report” at 3). In Dr. Zhao’s opinion, the most
appropriate, least restrictive living situation for Mother would be a “secure
facility[.]” Id. at 4.

                                           -3-
J-A16022-23

move Mother back to Phoebe as soon as possible to avoid possible harm to

Mother.” Id.

      A hearing on the petition was originally scheduled for December 21,

2021, and Rebecca L. Bell, Esquire, was appointed as counsel for Mother. Id.

at 3. Daughter filed a response to the petition, in which she averred that

“Mother   has    the   requisite   capacity   to   determine   her   own    living

arrangements[,]” and that “Daughter wants Mother to live her remaining days

with family so long as it is feasible.” Id. After several continuances, a hearing

was held on July 12, 2021, at which Gary Champlin, Ph.D., a geriatric

psychology expert; Michele Butch, the administrator of the personal care

facility at Phoebe; and Son testified on behalf of the Petitioners. Daughter

and Mother were called as witnesses on behalf of the respondent.            N.T.,

7/12/22, at 2.

      The orphans’ court summarized Dr. Champlin’s testimony, based on his

December 27, 2021 independent evaluation of Mother, as follows:

      He determined that Mother had difficulty with information about
      her medications and power of attorney and other memory
      difficulties. Dr. Champlin believed that Mother was doing well at
      Phoebe, which seemed like an appropriate placement
      [considering] Mother’s cognitive limitations. He believed that her
      wishes to live with family should be respected if a comparable
      level of care could be given by the family. At the time of the
      hearing, Mother’s expressed choice was to live with Daughter in
      the Bronx.

      Mother’s prognosis is poor in terms of her cognitive abilities, and
      there is a need for guardianship services. Dr. Champlin opined
      that neither of the power of attorneys were likely valid. Mother
      has cognitive deficits that affect her ability to make good

                                      -4-
J-A16022-23

      decisions. She does not know her medications.        Her cognitive
      deficits are progressive.

OCO at 3-4 (citations to record and some paragraph breaks omitted).

      Ms. Butch explained that the personal care facility at Phoebe where

Mother resides provides “activities of daily living” for residents, like Mother,

that are in between independent living care and skilled nursing care. Id. at

4; N.T. at 34. She described Mother as “very pleasant. She’s a very nice[,]

graceful lady.” N.T. at 36. Ms. Butch further testified that Mother’s primary

issue concerns her cognition and memory. OCO at 4. She explained that the

staff at Phoebe assists Mother with administering her medicine, offers her

standby assist with showers, and reminds her to go to meals. Id. Ms. Butch

also indicated that Petitioners have not authorized Phoebe to share any

information with Daughter. Id. See also N.T. at 48 (Ms. Butch’s noting that

when Daughter called the facility inquiring about Mother, she would refer her

to Son). “There are constant telephone calls between Mother and Daughter.

Ms. Butch believes that these calls deter Mother from leaving her room and

that they interfere with Mother’s behavior and demeanor and her activities

within the facility.” OCO at 4.

      Son is retired from the military. Id. at 5. He testified that he had a

good relationship with Mother until approximately ten to twelve years ago.

Id.   He claims that he stopped communicating with Mother because she

became “very condescending, dismissive, disrespectful, and nasty.” Id. See

also N.T. at 86 (Son’s stating that “we haven’t been in contact for 10 to 12

years until she called me in May of 2021”). Son reported that during the four

                                     -5-
J-A16022-23

months that Mother lived with him, he prepared meals for her, had to remind

her to bathe, and had to show her daily how to make coffee. Id. at 6. “Son

believes that neither he nor Daughter can take care of Mother due to her

Alzheimer’s disease.” Id.

        Regarding Daughter’s interactions with Mother, Son testified that he

originally put Daughter on the “access list” at Mother’s doctors’ offices and at

Phoebe; however, he revoked her status when Daughter started cancelling

Mother’s appointments and telling Mother not to take her medication. Id. In

February 2022, Son permitted Mother to visit Daughter in New York for two

weeks, because Daughter wanted Mother to be evaluated for an in-home care

plan. Son stated that the care plan addressed only cleaning and providing

lunches; it failed to address Mother’s needs due to her medical condition. Id.

at 7.    On at least two occasions, Son refused Mother visits with Daughter

because of medication issues. Id.

        Son acknowledged that his relationship with Mother is “still contentious

at times.” Id. He admitted that they argued in June of 2022, and that he

told Mother that “he should have left her ass in South Carolina” due to her

behavior. Id. Notwithstanding, Son does not believe that it is relevant who

has a better relationship with Mother – only the type of care Mother needs is

relevant. Id. He believes that it is important for Mother to be at a facility

that can take care of her now and in the future. Id.

                                      -6-
J-A16022-23

       Daughter works as a civilian principal for the New York Police

Department.       Id.4    She resides with her husband, who is retired.    Id.

Daughter testified that she has “a great relationship” with Mother. Id. at 8.

She talks to Mother all the time because she does not want her to feel lonely

or depressed.      Id.    Daughter acknowledged that there was a period of

approximately 5 years during which she did not speak to Mother; however,

Daughter was 23 years old at the time their rift began and is now 57 years

old. Id. See also N.T. at 136 (“It was a long time ago…, but then we made

up. And ever since then, we’ve been back to the way we always been.”).

       Daughter recalled that Mother called her in May of 2021 and told her

that Son was coming to visit her. N.T. at 138. Daughter informed Son that

she wanted to be Mother’s caretaker, but he said that was wishful thinking

and that Mother needed a facility. OCO at 8.5 Once Mother was placed at

Phoebe, she would occasionally stay with Daughter. N.T. at 140. Daughter

____________________________________________

4 Mother explained, “[M]y position is called principal. I am a supervisor
equivalent to a lieutenant.” N.T. at 135. She supervises administrative staff.
OCO at 7.

5 Daughter testified that she made it “very clear” to Son that she was willing

to be Mother’s caretaker. N.T. at 139. See also id. (Daughter’s recalling
telling Son that “before [Mother] goes to any facility, she will come and live
with me”); id. at 140 (Daughter’s recounting a conversation with Daughter-
in-Law the night before Petitioners were taking Mother to Phoebe: “[Daughter-
in-Law] called me and told me that they were putting her in a facility. And I
told [her], … no, I will leave my house right now. I will come pick her up. She
doesn’t have to go to no facility. And [Daughter-in-Law] said it was a done
deal, that it’s too late. If I wanted my mom, I lost my chance because I didn’t
go pick her up from South Carolina.”).

                                           -7-
J-A16022-23

stated that, prior to Mother’s visit over Thanksgiving in November of 2021,

Mother “was supposed to come live with me.” Id. Mother had given Phoebe

her thirty-day notice twice to go live with Daughter,6 but the first time,

Daughter-in-Law talked Mother out of it. OCO at 8. At this point, the court

interrupted Mother’s testimony and urged counsel to move on with any

remaining witnesses.7

       During Mother’s testimony, she declared, “I would like for my daughter

to take charge of me and my estate…. Because she understands me, she talks

to me, and she lets my wish [sic] be known[,] and she does what I want, not

what she wants.” N.T. at 145. Mother expressed that Daughter cares about

her and loves her very much. Id. When asked where Mother wants to live,

she responded, “My desire is to live with my daughter…. Because she respects

me and she listens to me[.]” Id. at 146. Mother prefers living in a home as

opposed to a facility and finds Daughter’s home “very comforting and secure.”

Id. at 148. See also id. at 147 (Mother’s testifying that she is not happy

living at Phoebe and stating, “I want to live with my daughter.”).

       In contrast, Mother stated that Son told her during a recent visit that he

has a life to live.    OCO at 8; N.T. at 146-47.    Mother does not think Son
____________________________________________

6 See N.T. at 141 (Daughter’s explaining that she spoke with Ms. Butch and

that Ms. Butch said Mother “could make her own decisions. The only thing
that [Mother] had to do was give her 30-day notice.”).

7 The court interjected, “I understand…. It’s clear what we have here. Now,
who else are we going to have testify?” N.T. at 141. Counsel for Mother
replied, “My client.” Id. The court stated, “Well, why don’t we get to that.”
Id.

                                           -8-
J-A16022-23

respects her wishes or does what is in her best interest. N.T. at 147. She

described   her   experience   living   with   Son   and   Daughter-in-Law   as

“uncomfortable.” Id. at 148. “Because they had their life, and they were

living their life, and I felt I was interrupting them.” Id. Mother recalled Son

becoming upset with her during his last visit with her when she refused to sign

a document that he wanted her to sign. Id. at 149. “His eyes were bulging,

and he was very upset, and he was right in my face almost nose to nose saying

I should have left your ass in South Carolina.” Id. at 150. Mother indicated

that she felt like Son was “filled with hate and disgust” for her, that Son does

not visit or call her, and that she does not think Son has the level of

compassion for her that is needed to serve as her guardian. Id. at 155-56.

      After considering the foregoing evidence, the orphans’ court entered its

July 12, 2022 order, declaring Mother to be an incapacitated person and

appointing the Petitioners as permanent, plenary co-guardians of Mother’s

person and her estate. OCO at 8. On July 21, 2022, Mother filed a timely

motion for reconsideration, in which she requested that the orphans’ court

reconsider its decision and schedule a hearing to consider the appointment of

a professional guardian, Sharon Gray, Esquire. Motion for Reconsideration,

7/21/22, at 2-3. See also id. at ¶ 9 (explaining that while Mother desired for

Daughter to be appointed as her plenary guardian, her “secondary choice

would be for a professional guardian to be appointed”); id. at 10 (“Due to the

lateness of the hour and the desire of the court to complete the testimony,

[Mother] did not get to present her proposed order appointing Sharon Gray,

                                        -9-
J-A16022-23

Esquire as her plenary guardian.”) (cleaned up). Petitioners filed a response

on July 26, 2022. On August 3, 2022, the orphans’ court entered an order

expressly granting Mother’s motion for reconsideration and scheduling a

hearing on the matter for August 11, 2022. By order of court dated August

10, 2022, the August 11, 2022 hearing was continued to October 18, 2022.

      On August 11, 2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal from the court’s

July 12, 2022 decision appointing the Petitioners as her plenary co-guardians.

In response, the orphans’ court directed her to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal.        Mother complied, and the

orphans’ court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on September 26, 2022.         On

appeal, Mother presents a single issue for our review: “Whether the lower

court erred in appointing [Mother’s] Son and Daughter-in-Law as plenary

guardians instead of selecting either a professional guardian or … [Mother’s]

daughter?” Mother’s Brief at 9 (cleaned up).

      Preliminarily, we must determine whether this appeal is properly before

us. “Timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional matter which can be raised by

the court sua sponte.” Penjerdel Refrigeration Corp., Inc. v. R.A.C.S.,

Inc., 442 A.2d 296, 297 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted).        Thus, we

consider the timeliness of Mother’s appeal under the guidance of the following

applicable rules.

      Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rule 8.2 provides, in relevant part: “By

motion, a party may request the court to reconsider any order that is final

under Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) or 342, or interlocutory orders subject to immediate

                                     - 10 -
J-A16022-23

appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 311, so long as the order granting reconsideration is

consistent with Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3).” Pa.O.C.R. 8.2(a). See also Pa.O.C.R.

8.2, Explanatory Comment (“The period for filing an appeal is not tolled by

the filing of a motion for reconsideration unless the court grants the motion

for reconsideration prior to the expiration of the appeal period.” (citing

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3))); Pa.R.A.P. 903 (stating that a notice of appeal shall be

filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken,

except as otherwise set forth in Rule 903).

      Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3), after

an appeal is taken, the trial court may:

      (3) Grant reconsideration of the order which is the subject of the
      appeal…, if:

            (i) an application for reconsideration of the order is filed in
            the trial court … within the time provided or prescribed by
            law; and

            (ii) an order expressly granting reconsideration of such prior
            order is filed in the trial court … within the time prescribed
            by these rules for the filing of a notice of appeal … with
            respect to such order, or within any shorter time provided
            or prescribed by law for the granting of reconsideration.

      A timely order granting reconsideration under this
      paragraph shall render inoperative any such notice of
      appeal … theretofore or thereafter filed or docketed with
      respect to the prior order. The petitioning party shall and any
      party may file a praecipe with the prothonotary of any court in
      which such an inoperative notice … is filed or docketed and the
      prothonotary shall note on the docket that such notice … has been
      stricken under this rule.        Where a timely order of
      reconsideration is entered under this paragraph, the time
      for filing a notice of appeal … begins to run anew after the
      entry of the decision on reconsideration, whether or not
      that decision amounts to a reaffirmation of the prior

                                     - 11 -
J-A16022-23

      determination of the trial court…. No additional fees shall be
      required for the filing of the new notice of appeal….

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3)(i), (ii) (emphasis added).

      Instantly, Mother timely filed her motion for reconsideration of the July

12, 2022 decision on July 21, 2022. On August 3, 2022, within the 30-day

appeal period, the orphans’ court expressly granted reconsideration, thereby

tolling the appeal period.   See Pa.O.C.R. 8.2, Explanatory Comment (“The

period for filing an appeal is not tolled by the filing of a motion for

reconsideration unless the court grants the motion for reconsideration prior to

the expiration of the appeal period.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3) (“Where a timely

order of reconsideration is entered under this paragraph, the time for filing a

notice of appeal … begins to run anew after the entry of the decision on

reconsideration, whether or not that decision amounts to a reaffirmation of

the prior determination of the trial court….”). Nevertheless, Mother filed her

notice of appeal to this Court on August 11, 2022, and the orphans’ court

never reached a decision on reconsideration.

      Under these circumstances, Mother’s notice of appeal was ineffectual,

and we are constrained to quash this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3) (“A

timely order granting reconsideration under this paragraph shall render

inoperative any such notice of appeal … thereafter filed or docketed with

respect to the prior order.”); Pa. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. State

Farm Ins. Co., 853 A.2d 407, 409 (Pa. Super. 2004) (noting that the trial

court retained jurisdiction even though a notice of appeal was filed during the

                                    - 12 -
J-A16022-23

appeal period, as the timely order granting reconsideration rendered the

notice of appeal inoperative).

       We note that once a timely order expressly granting reconsideration is

entered, there is no time constraint imposed on the orphans’ court for the

entry of its reconsidered decision. See Pa.O.C.R. 8.2; Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3).

Thus, the orphans’ court may proceed with its consideration of Mother’s

request for the appointment of a professional guardian.       Further, nothing

herein shall be construed as preventing Mother and/or Daughter from

requesting a review hearing pursuant to their rights under Section 5512.2 of

the PEF Code. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2 (“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.”).      In addition, given that

Mother’s disease is progressive8 and that her circumstances may have

changed since the July 12, 2022 hearing, we point out that the orphans’ court

is empowered to conduct a review hearing at any time, at which it should

honor Mother’s wishes to the fullest extent possible. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2

(“The court may … hold a review hearing at any time it shall direct.”);

____________________________________________

8 See Dr. Zhao’s Expert Report at 4 (“Alzheimer’s is a chronic and progressive

condition.”).

                                          - 13 -
J-A16022-23

Interest of M.A., 284 A.3d 1202, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“The PEF Code

mandates that orphans’ courts honor, to the extent possible, the wishes of the

[alleged incapacitated person].” (citing 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5502; 5521(a))); In re

Estate of Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(emphasizing that “the intentions of the incapacitated person are to be

honored to the fullest extent possible”).

      Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/04/2023

                                    - 14 -