Bratton v. Blenkinsop

• Decision Date: 08 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. S–13–0226.,S–13–0226.
• Citation: 330 P.3d 248
• Parties: In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP and Conservatorship OF William G. BRATTON, Ward, Robert E. Bratton, Appellant (Petitioner), v. Jeanne Blenkinsop, Appellee.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

330 P.3d 248

In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP and Conservatorship OF William G. BRATTON, Ward,Robert E. Bratton, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.Jeanne Blenkinsop, Appellee.

No. S–13–0226.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 8, 2014.

Representing Appellant: Robert E. Bratton, Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Mary Helen Reed of McCarty, Reed & Earhart, Attorneys at Law, L.C., Cody, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE ^*, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant Robert Bratton (Bratton) petitioned for appointment as guardian of his seventy-six-year-old brother William (William). Their sister, Appellee Jeanne Blenkinsop (Blenkinsop), cross-petitioned and asked that she instead be appointed as William's guardian and conservator. When Bratton failed to appear at a pretrial conference, the district court dismissed his petition and appointed Blenkinsop to temporarily assume those duties. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] We summarize the issues presented as follows:

1. Did the district court err in failing to address Bratton's motion for alternative dispute resolution and his motion to quash the proposed order dismissing his petition?

2. Did a second judge err in denying Bratton's motion to disqualify the judge who was presiding over the guardianship/conservatorship proceedings for cause?

FACTS

[¶ 3] William Bratton suffers from a lifelong mental disability. Although the record contains no precise diagnosis of his affliction, the parties and the guardian ad litem characterized it as akin to Asperger's syndrome, a relatively mild form of autism spectrum disorder.¹ Prior to her death in 2004, William's mother established a trust designed in part to support William in his later years. It provided that he could live in the family home in Cody as long as he was able to do so, and for payment of his living expenses from a Wells Fargo money market account.

[¶ 4] Blenkinsop and Bratton were the sole trustees, and both had access to the Wells Fargo account.² Sometime prior to the filing of their competing petitions to serve as guardian, they took steps to prevent William from accessing the account because he had fallen prey to financial “scammers” who target the elderly and infirm.

[¶ 5] That particular vulnerability was the one point of agreement in Bratton's petition for guardianship filed on June 29, 2012, and the cross-petition for guardianship and conservatorship filed by Blenkinsop on July 19. Bratton believed that William was mentally incompetent to a degree that rendered him unable to handle his personal affairs, his health needs, and his finances.³ However, Blenkinsop, while conceding that William was at times unable to care for himself and his property without assistance, asserted that he was generally able to meet his own medical needs in a reasonable manner. She also indicated that she assisted him in all of his financial affairs, and that she had prevented him from having access to large amounts of funds that others could swindle from him. Finally, Blenkinsop reported that she and William agreed that her appointment as his guardian and conservator would be in his best interest. William confirmed this by filing a signed and notarized document with the district court.⁴ Blenkinsop contemporaneously moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem to independently meet with and report on William's condition, represent his interests, and make a written recommendation as to whether she or Bratton should be appointed his permanent guardian and/or conservator.

[¶ 6] On August 2, 2012, two weeks after Blenkinsop filed her cross-petition, Bratton's attorney moved to withdraw from the case for reasons that cannot be ascertained from the record transmitted to this Court. Thereafter, Bratton represented himself.

[¶ 7] On September 11, Blenkinsop filed a motion alleging that the Wells Fargo money market savings account had been established solely for William's benefit, that only she and Bratton had access to those funds, and that on July 23, 2012, Bratton transferred $10,000 of William's money to a checking account that he controlled. Blenkinsop moved for an order requiring Bratton to return the money. Bratton had named the account in which the funds were deposited the “William Bratton Guardian Legal Fund.”

[¶ 8] The guardian ad litem appointed by the court on September 14 filed a report on December 19, 2012. After reviewing William's medical records and interviewing him and his neighbors, friends, and family members, she concluded that he was bright and independent, and that he had a desire to remain active that was perhaps more important to him than the cleanliness of his home. To illustrate, she noted that he took a summer job in 2012 washing dishes for a local Pizza Hut. Nevertheless, because of concerns that his mental disability might worsen with age, she concluded that he needed assistance to manage his finances and help to care for himself and his home. In regard to his medical needs, she recommended that he have more regular health care screenings and preventative care, and that he form a consistent patient relationship with a primary care physician.

[¶ 9] Those interviewed by the guardian ad litem suggested that Blenkinsop was better suited than Bratton to handle William's affairs. They pointed out that Blenkinsop had helped William for years, and that she included him in the life and activities of her family. They noted her substantial investment of time and effort to remain actively engaged and involved with him, and they felt that she genuinely cared for him.

[¶ 10] In contrast, those interviewed were suspicious of Bratton's recent interest in William. They portrayed him as rigid and controlling, with an approach to life that would not mesh well with William's. They generally considered him impatient and selfish, and some attributed their views to the fact that he became totally estranged from one of his daughters during her early teens, after which Blenkinsop took the girl in, raised her, and put her through college. In addition, the guardian ad litem was informed that Blenkinsop consistently spent eight to nine months a year in Cody, while Bratton was there for only three to six months per year, and that Bratton had expressed a desire to institutionalize William and sell the family home.

[¶ 11] Based on the information she gathered and William's preference, the guardian ad litem recommended that the court appoint Blenkinsop as his permanent guardian and conservator. She also recommended that William be allowed to reside in the family home until he could no longer live independently.

[¶ 12] On February 11, 2013, the district court ordered Bratton to deposit the $10,000 he had transferred from the Wells Fargo money market savings account with the court. Four days later, Bratton moved for an order requiring a psychological evaluation of William and postponing all settings until that evaluation could be completed. On February 21, the court issued a scheduling order which memorialized an agreement by the parties that any efforts to mediate their differences would be completed by May 31, 2013, and which set a final pretrial conference and trial for October 9 and October 23 of 2013 respectively. The record before us does not demonstrate any attempt at mediation prior to the May 31 deadline.

[¶ 13] On June 6, 2013, the district court reset the pretrial conference and the trial for August 7 and September 3. On July 8, 2013, it ordered William to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to trial. On July 22, Bratton moved the court to assign the case to a mediator and to appoint his nominee to that position. He did not request a hearing on that motion.

[¶ 14] Blenkinsop filed her pretrial memo on July 31, seven days before the scheduled conference, and the guardian ad litem filed hers on August 2. Blenkinsop noted that the court would probably need to address Bratton's motion for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) at the pretrial conference, and the guardian ad litem advised the court that the parties were trying to agree on a mediator to complete mediation.

[¶ 15] Bratton did not file a pretrial memo prior to the conference, move to continue the conference, advise the court that he could not attend it for some reason, or show up at the appointed date and time. Blenkinsop's attorney told the court at the conference that she had spoken to Bratton briefly about the mediation he had proposed, and that she had emailed him about his failure to file a pretrial memo, but that he never responded to the email. The guardian ad litem told the court that she had received an email from Bratton acknowledging that he was aware of the pretrial conference, which was to take place the same morning as the email. That email, which was read into the record, indicated that Bratton thought mediation would have been completed by now, that he believed the case would still go to trial because the mediation would be unsuccessful, and that it was unrealistic to believe that mediation could be completed and the trial held in roughly four weeks as then scheduled.

[¶ 16] The district court decided that it would sanction Bratton for his failure to attend the pretrial conference and participate in the orderly resolution of the case by dismissing his petition for guardianship. It asked Blenkinsop's counsel to draft an order to that effect.

[¶ 17] Counsel prepared the order and emailed a copy to Bratton for his approval as to form on August 13, 2013. Bratton refused to approve the proposed order and instead moved to quash it on August 23. As grounds for that relief, he claimed that he was denied the opportunity to address the court regarding his motion to assign the case to a mediator. On September 9, the district court entered the order drafted by Blenkinsop's attorney.

[¶ 18] Three weeks later, Bratton filed a petition to disqualify the presiding judge for alleged bias, and that petition was assigned to a district judge in Cheyenne to...