In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Maggie Jean Lewis Turner

Citation: Not availableDocket: 18-1361

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; August 21, 2019; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Timothy Lewis and Kimberly Hawkins, the niece and nephew of Maggie Jean Lewis Turner, appeal the denial of their guardianship and conservatorship applications, which favored her long-time friends, Marian and David Coleman. The Iowa District Court, led by Judge Lars G. Anderson, appointed the Colemans as guardians after determining that Jean, who is now 85 and suffers from dementia, had the capacity to grant durable medical powers of attorney to them and a financial power of attorney to Hills Bank and Trust Company in 2013. The court found no error in this decision. 

Jean Turner, a retired school teacher, had a close relationship with the Colemans, especially after her husband’s death in 1991, leading her to rely on them for daily assistance. Over the years, her family observed a decline in her cognitive abilities, but they did not take action until much later. The appeal noted the family’s belief that they were better suited to care for her. Ultimately, the court's ruling affirmed the Colemans' role in managing Jean's affairs.

Jean executed powers of attorney with assistance from Hayek, designating Scrappy and Clarence Skog for financial matters, along with a living will and durable medical power of attorney for Scrappy. Following Scrappy’s death two years later, her family expressed concerns about her well-being, noting her unkempt appearance and disordered living conditions. Attempts to clarify her power of attorney arrangements were unsuccessful, leading Jean to meet with Hayek again to draft a new will and powers of attorney in November 2013, amid awareness of her declining cognitive abilities. In 2014, Jean was diagnosed with dementia and subsequently moved to a retirement community. 

In 2016, her family petitioned for a guardian and conservator, claiming the powers of attorney were invalid due to her alleged lack of capacity at the time of their execution. The Colemans sought to intervene, advocating for their appointment as guardians and asserting that Hills Bank was managing her finances adequately. The court ruled in April 2017 that the powers of attorney were valid and appointed the Colemans as guardians, leading to an appeal from Timothy and Kimberly.

The appellate review focuses on the validity of the powers of attorney, the appropriate guardian selection, and the necessity of a conservator. The court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and its discretion in guardian appointments will not be interfered with unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

Timothy and Kimberly argue that the 2013 powers of attorney executed by Jean are invalid due to her alleged lack of mental capacity. They criticize attorney Hayek and the Colemans for allowing Jean to sign despite her cognitive decline, noting Hayek’s prior caution to his staff regarding her mental state. Legal principles establish that a power of attorney is a contract, requiring the parties to have the capacity to contract. The burden is on Timothy and Kimberly to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Jean lacked the necessary mental capacity at the time of execution.

The district court acknowledged Jean's cognitive decline but found insufficient evidence of incapacity. Timothy and Kimberly did not have contact with Jean during the signing of the documents, while Hayek and his staff, who were present, observed no signs of incapacity. The court deemed Jean’s decisions regarding the Colemans and Hills Bank as reasonable and consistent with her relationships. The family failed to provide medical evidence of dementia from 2013. Hayek, who had met with Jean multiple times over the preceding years, testified that while she had some cognitive decline, he did not believe she was incompetent. During meetings in November 2013, Jean appeared conversant and engaged, understanding the discussions about her estate, which Hayek considered to be rational and consistent.

Hayek clarified the implications of powers of attorney while addressing Scrappy’s estate, believing Jean had a layperson's understanding of probate proceedings. He took care to assess her capacity due to her cognitive decline, involving two staff members in the meeting to ensure proper execution of the documents. Despite concerns, Jean appeared competent, recalling discussions from ten days prior, engaging normally in conversations, and expressing a consistent desire regarding her powers of attorney. Both staff members corroborated her apparent understanding and lack of incapacity, witnessing the will signings. The family challenged Hayek’s credibility regarding Jean's mental state but failed to provide counter-evidence. Hayek’s extensive experience and careful assessment reinforced the district court’s finding that Jean was competent to execute the documents.

Regarding guardianship, Timothy and Kimberly argued for Kimberly’s suitability over the Colemans, citing family ties and plans to relocate Jean to North Carolina. However, the district court is not bound by family opinions in guardian selection; it must determine which candidate best serves the ward's interests. The court favored the Colemans, noting they had been caring for Jean prior to family involvement, understood her medical needs, and provided care without compensation. The court emphasized that moving Jean would disrupt her routine, contradicting her presumed wishes, as she had never taken steps to return to Greensboro after living in Iowa City for over forty years.

Marian and the Colemans have maintained a close, supportive relationship with Jean since her relocation to Iowa in 1972, providing care during health declines and advocating for her needs at the nursing home. They consistently visit her, unlike Timothy, Kimberly, and the Greensboro family, who have had limited contact with her in recent years due to her preference for privacy. The court found substantial evidence that Jean chose the Colemans as her powers of attorney and preferred them as guardians, as indicated by her history and decisions regarding her living situation. She did not move to Greensboro after significant life events, reinforcing the conclusion that she would not want to relocate now. 

Regarding conservatorship, Timothy argued that Hills Bank, acting as attorney-in-fact, cannot adequately meet Jean’s financial needs and sought to be appointed as conservator. He claimed his relationship with Jean and his qualifications would make him suitable for the role. However, to appoint a conservator, clear evidence must demonstrate the ward’s impaired decision-making capacity. The district court found that Jean’s financial needs are met by Hills Bank, which has managed her affairs effectively for nearly twenty years. The court supported its decision by noting that the family did not provide evidence that a conservator would improve Jean's situation, nor did they challenge the effectiveness of Hills Bank’s management. Timothy's desire for court oversight stemmed from his limited experience in finance, as he intended to eventually transfer the conservatorship to a professional. Ultimately, the court affirmed that appointing Timothy as conservator was unnecessary, concluding that Hills Bank was satisfactorily meeting Jean’s needs.