M.L. v. Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (In re Guardianship of E.L.)
| Decision Date | 12 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2012AP2464,2013AP2681.,s. 2012AP2464 |
| Citation | 880 N.W.2d 182 (Table),369 Wis.2d 222 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP and Protective Placement OF E.L.: M.L., Appellant, R.L., Co–Appellant, v. Outagamie County Department of Health and Human Services, Respondent. In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of E.L.: M.L. and R.L., Appellants, v. Outagamie County Department of Health and Human Services, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
In these consolidated appeals, M.L. and R. L., both pro se, appeal an order placing their mother, E. L., under guardianship, and an order denying their Wis. Stat. § 806.07
motions for relief from the guardianship order.1 We reject their myriad arguments and affirm.
¶ 2 This is the second time M.L. and R.L. have appealed an order placing E.L. under guardianship. In our previous opinion, we set forth the following background facts, which are also relevant to this appeal:
[E.L.] has had progressive dementia since at least 2006. In January 2009, [R.L.] transferred $28,000 from one of [E. L.'s] accounts to his account. In February 2009, [R.L.] and [M.L.] took [E.L.] to an attorney, and [E.L.] executed a durable power of attorney that named [R.L.] and another son, [D. L.], as her agents. [E.L.] also executed a health care power of attorney that named [R.L.] as her agent, and [one of her other daughters, M. L.(2).,] as an alternate agent.
[M.L.] v. Outagamie Cty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No.2011AP152, unpublished slip op. ¶ 3 (WI App June 5, 2012).
¶ 3 On June 24, 2010, the Outagamie County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) petitioned for temporary and permanent guardianship of E. L.'s person and estate. Id., ¶ 4. Between August 10 and October 21, 2010, the circuit court held five hearings on the Department's petition. Id., ¶¶ 6–7. The court ultimately granted the Department's petition and appointed M. L.(2) as guardian of E. L.'s person and one of E. L.'s granddaughters, L. B., as guardian of her estate. Id., ¶ 8. The court also invalidated the 2009 powers of attorney, after finding E.L. was not competent to execute them and R. L., her agent and son, had been financially abusing her. Id.
¶ 4 M.L. and R.L. then appealed from the guardianship order, and from a related order for protective placement. Id., ¶ 1. We reversed, concluding the circuit court lost competency by failing to complete the hearing on the guardianship petition within the ninety-day period mandated by Wis. Stat. § 54.44(1)
. [M.L .], No.2011AP152, ¶¶ 10, 16. We did not address M.L. and R. L.'s other arguments regarding the guardianship and protective placement orders.2
Id., ¶ 17. One of the effects of our reversal was to reinstate the February 2009 powers of attorney. Id., ¶ 16 n. 2.
¶ 5 On June 12, 2012, seven days after we issued our decision in the previous appeal, the Department filed another petition for temporary and permanent guardianship of E. L., along with a petition for protective placement. On the same day, following a hearing, a court commissioner granted temporary guardianships over E. L.'s person and estate and temporarily invalidated the February 2009 powers of attorney. R.L. and M. L., who were identified as interested persons in the guardianship petition, attended the hearing and opposed the Department's request for a guardianship. See Wis. Stat. § 54.01(17)(a)2.
(for purposes of guardianship petition, adult child of the proposed ward is an interested person). R.L. and M.L. subsequently moved for rehearing, for judicial review of the court commissioner's decision, and for a de novo hearing in the circuit court.
¶ 6 A de novo hearing was held before the circuit court on June 20, 2012.3 On June 22, the court issued an oral decision granting the Department's petition for temporary guardianship and temporarily invalidating the 2009 powers of attorney.
¶ 7 The final hearing on the Department's petitions for permanent guardianship and protective placement took place on August 7, 8, and 28, 2012. On September 18, 2012, the circuit court entered a written order granting permanent guardianships over E. L.'s person and estate, invalidating the 2009 powers of attorney, and ordering R .L. to return $17,000 to E.L. As in the 2010 proceedings, E. L.'s granddaughter L.B. was named guardian of her estate, and E. L.'s daughter M. L.(2) was named guardian of her person. A second order was entered denying the Department's petition for protective placement. M.L. and R.L. timely filed notices of appeal from the permanent guardianship order.
¶ 8 Meanwhile, M.L. and R.L. moved for relief from the permanent guardianship order, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(a), (b), (c), and (h)
. The Department later moved for sanctions, under Wis. Stat. § 802.05(3), asserting M.L. and R. L .'s § 806.07 motions were filed for the improper purpose of causing unnecessary delay, were not warranted by existing law, and lacked evidentiary support.
¶ 9 A hearing was held on October 2, 2013, to address the various motions before the circuit court. On October 28, the court entered a written order denying M.L. and R. L.'s motions for relief from the guardianship order. The order further stated, “As to the Motion for Sanctions filed by [the Department] ... the Court will not specifically address that Motion and, therefore, the Motion is denied.”
¶ 10 M.L. and R.L. timely filed a notice of appeal from the court's October 28 order. On July 9, 2014, we consolidated that appeal with their appeal from the permanent guardianship order. E.L. died in July 2015, after briefing in these appeals was completed.
¶ 11 M.L. and R.L. raise numerous issues in these appeals. The vast majority of these issues pertain to the validity of the guardianships over E. L.'s person and estate. That is, M.L. and R.L. argue the circuit court committed various legal and procedural errors during the guardianship proceedings, and the permanent guardianship order was therefore invalid.
¶ 12 The legal and procedural issues M.L. and R.L. raise regarding the guardianship proceedings would normally be moot because the guardianships over E. L.'s person and estate terminated with her death. See State ex rel. Milwaukee Cty. Pers. Rev. Bd. v. Clarke, 2006 WI App 186, ¶ 28, 296 Wis.2d 210, 723 N.W.2d 141
(quoting State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶ 3, 233 Wis.2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425 ) (“An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.”). However, R.L. and M.L. raise three issues that are not mooted by E. L.'s death: (1) R. L.'s contention that the circuit court erred by ordering him to return $17,000 to E. L.; (2) M. L.'s contention that the court erred by ordering payment of guardian ad litem fees from E. L.'s guardianship estate; and (3) M.L. and R. L.'s argument that the court erred with respect to its handling of the Department's motion for sanctions. If the permanent guardianship order was invalid due to any of the legal or procedural errors alleged by M.L. and R. L., the circuit court could not have entered enforceable orders requiring R.L. to return $17,000 to E.L. and requiring E. L.'s guardianship estate to pay the guardian ad litem fees. Consequently, despite E. L.'s death, the alleged procedural and legal errors regarding the guardianship proceedings are not moot. We therefore turn to the merits of M. L.'s and R. L.'s arguments.4
¶ 13 M.L. and R.L. claim the circuit court lacked competency to consider the guardianship petition filed on June 12, 2012, because that petition did not institute a new guardianship proceeding. Instead, they claim the 2012 petition merely “reopened” the guardianship proceeding that was previously commenced in 2010. M.L. and R.L. argue reopening the old case was impermissible because the guardianship order entered in that case was reversed on appeal.
¶ 14 M.L. and R. L.'s competency argument rests on a faulty premise. Contrary to their assertion, the 2012 guardianship petition did not reopen the 2010 case. The 2012 proceedings were not instituted by a motion to reopen. Rather, the Department filed a new guardianship petition, which was supported by a new medical evaluation dated June 8, 2012. Although the 2012 petition and medical evaluation referred to some facts that were present in 2010, they also included new information that did not exist at the time the previous petition was filed.
¶ 15 M.L. and R.L. assert the 2012 petition was assigned the same case number as the 2010 petition. However, that is incorrect. The 2010 proceedings were designated Outagamie County case No.2010GN53, while the 2012 petition was given Outagamie County case No.2010GN53A. Sue Lutz, from Outagamie County's probate office, explained that it was standard practice for her office to “keep all matters for the same individual in the same file.” Although Lutz initially stated the instant proceedings were “considered to be reopened,” she then clarified that her office appended the letter “A” to the case number from the 2010 case to indicate that the instant proceedings were “a new action[.]” Lutz confirmed this practice is used “for continuity sake[,]” “[s]o we don't have 10 files for one person that all pertain to the same subject.”
¶ 16 M.L. and R.L. observe that some of the documents filed in the instant case used the old case number, without the added “A.” However, we agree with the Department that this is a mere technical or scrivener's error. “The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.” Wis. Stat. § 805.18(1)
. Here, the omission of the letter “A” from certain filings did not affect M.L. or R. L.'s substantial rights. Despite the erroneous case number, M.L. and R.L. had actual notice of the 2012 guardianship petition and contested the petition during all stages of the proceedings. There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial