Miseveth v. Aelion

• Decision Date: 21 December 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2419, Sept. Term, 2016,2419, Sept. Term, 2016
• Citation: 175 A.3d 903,235 Md.App. 250
• Parties: Jing Miao MISEVETH v. Jeanne AELION, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

235 Md.App. 250

175 A.3d 903

Jing Miao MISEVETH

v.Jeanne AELION, et al.

No. 2419, Sept. Term, 2016

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

December 21, 2017

Argued by: David W. Lease (Smith, Lease & Goldstein, LLC on the brief), Rockville, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Jeanne K. Aelion, Bowie, Md, for Appellee.

Panel: Wright, Graeff, Nazarian, JJ.

Wright, J.

In 2015, Jing Miao Miseveth, appellant, filed, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, a petition for guardianship of the person and property for her husband, Theodore Miseveth. The circuit court ultimately granted appellant's request to be guardian of the person; however, the court ordered that a third-party, Jeanne Aelion, appellee, be guardian of the property. In 2016, Aelion was appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA") to be the fiduciary of Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits (hereinafter "Representative Payee"). Not long after, appellant submitted an application to the VA requesting that she be named Representative Payee. That application was granted. Aelion thereafter filed a petition in the circuit court regarding, among other things, appellant's appointment as Representative Payee. Following a hearing, the court ordered that appellant reinstate Aelion as Representative Payee or, in the alternative, that appellant submit a portion of Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits to Aelion every month. Appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.

In this appeal, appellant presents the following question for our review:

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) and the interpreting case law, did the Circuit Court lack subject matter jurisdiction to pass any order addressing the appointment of the fiduciary for or the distribution of Mr. Miseveth's Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits?

For reasons to follow, we answer appellant's question in the affirmative. Because, however, the circuit court's judgment contains various other provisions not challenged in the instant appeal, we reverse only that part of the judgment concerning Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Miseveth, a veteran, suffered a stroke in May of 2015 that left him disabled. Not long after, appellant, Mr. Miseveth's wife of approximately four years, filed a petition seeking to become guardian of her husband's person and property. The circuit court held a hearing on that petition in November of 2015 and ultimately granted appellant's request to be guardian of Mr. Miseveth's person. Appellant's request to be guardian of the property, on the other hand, was denied. In so doing, the court expressed concerns about appellant's accounting practices and management of Mr. Miseveth's funds. As such, a court-appointed attorney, Aelion, was named as guardian of Mr. Miseveth's property.

In or about March of 2016, Aelion, as part of her duties as guardian of Mr. Miseveth's property, was named by the VA as Representative Payee of Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits, which equaled $3,068.90 per month. As part of that appointment, the VA issued a Fiduciary Agreement that itemized Mr. Miseveth's monthly expenses and how his VA benefits would be used to pay those expenses. Included in that itemization were expenses for auto insurance; utilities, mortgage, and insurance on a primary residence; utilities and insurance on real property owned by Mr. Miseveth; utilities and insurance on another piece of real property owned by Mr. Miseveth; and, a $1,000.00 monthly stipend for appellant. The total for those expenses was $2,976.89, all of which was covered by Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits.

Around the same time that Aelion submitted her application, appellant also submitted an application to the VA to become Representative Payee, but the VA denied that application and instead named Aelion. Several months later, appellant, unbeknownst to Aelion, again applied to become Representative Payee. The VA ultimately granted that application and named appellant as Representative Payee. As part of that appointment, the VA issued a notice to Mr. Miseveth and Aelion informing them of the new appointment. The VA also created a new list of Mr. Miseveth's expenses and how his VA benefits would be used to pay those expenses. That list of expenses, which differed significantly from the list that had been issued following Aelion's appointment, included expenses for auto insurance; utilities and insurance on a primary residence; a "cleaning service" for the residence; appellant's prescriptions; "lawn care"; "groceries"; and "special foods" for Mr. Miseveth. The total for those expenses was $2,724.35.

In October of 2016, Aelion filed a petition in the circuit court regarding appellant's appointment as Representative Payee.

Specifically, Aelion argued that, as guardian of the property, she had insufficient funds to cover Mr. Miseveth's expenses because appellant, as Representative Payee, was using some of Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits for "questionable" expenses. Aelion asked the court to settle the matter at a hearing on October 24, 2016, which the court had previously scheduled to address other issues.

At that hearing, the circuit court heard evidence regarding appellant's appointment as Representative Payee and her use of Mr. Miseveth's benefits. Based on that evidence, which is not in dispute, the court found as follows:

It's noted that after the Court appointed the guardian of the property, that [Aelion] became the representative payee, that at some point [appellant] had that changed and she became the representative payee. And it really—it appears that the guardian of the property was not opposed to that, if she were paying his bills. Because he has a significant number of bills, which relate—he has the property next door that he owns, utilities for that property, and other items.

[Appellant] has indicated that she's paying some of the bills, but not all of them. And that being said is the concern, because the guardian of the property's duty and obligation is to safeguard his assets and funds.

So if [appellant] has his veteran's check, but she's not paying all of the bills that are attributable to him, that's not safeguarding his assets and funds, and it's putting the guardian of the property in a position where she can't pay it. I know she still gets a small Social Security check, but that's about 500 and something and the VA check is about $3,000.

So my ruling is as follows: That the guardian of the property is to be appointed the representative payee. I know sometimes it's difficult for the Veteran's Affairs to do what—they do often what they want to do. In the alternative, [appellant] is to transfer all funds, with the exception of $1,000, to the guardianship account each month.

Because the previous order recognized that [Mr. Miseveth] took care of his wife financially, and so that's why we had—we've gone over everything she needed and we set out $1,000 and that $1,000 was just for her and the guardian of the property was paying the bills.

But based on where the Court is, that appears to be the best way to continue. That she continue to get her $1,000, but any funds that she receives in excess of that, she must put in the guardianship account for the guardian of the property to pay [Mr. Miseveth's] bills and financial obligation, because that's the whole purpose of the guardian of the property's duties and obligations.

Following its ruling, the circuit court entered judgment regarding multiple issues addressed at the hearing on October 24. The only portion of that judgment germane to Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits was the following order:

ORDERED, that [appellant] is hereby directed to reinstate Jeanne Aelion as the representative payee for [Mr. Miseveth's] Department of Veterans Affairs income. That until such time, upon receipt of [Mr. Miseveth's] monthly VA benefits, [appellant] shall submit to Jeanne Aelion, guardian of the property, all monies received except One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) which amount is hereby permitted to assist [appellant] with her personal expenses. The remaining funds shall be used by the guardian to safeguard [Mr. Miseveth's] interest by ensuring that expenses associated with and/or in the name of [Mr. Miseveth] are paid[.]

Appellant thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied. This timely appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The issue of subject matter jurisdiction need not be raised by any party, but may be raised by a court, sua sponte, at any time." Lewis v. Murshid , 147 Md.App. 199, 202–03, 807 A.2d 1170 (2002). "Jurisdiction of the subject-matter means not simply the particular case to which the attention of the court is directed, but the class of cases to which it belongs, and over which the authority of the court extends." Della Ratta v. Dyas , 183 Md.App. 344, 355, 961 A.2d 629 (2008) (citations and quotations omitted). "Whether a court has fundamental jurisdiction, i.e., the power, to decide a matter, must be determined by looking to ‘the applicable constitutional and statutory pronouncements[.]’ " Maryland Bd. of Nursing v. Nechay , 347 Md. 396, 405, 701 A.2d 405 (1997) (citation omitted). And, while there exists a general presumption that agency actions are reviewable, "this presumption can be overcome by ‘specific language’ that is ‘a reliable indicator of congressional intent’ that courts lack the power to hear a challenge to agency action." Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association, Inc. v. McDonald , 830 F.3d 570, 573 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues that the circuit court lacked the power to order her to reinstate Aelion as Representative Payee of Mr. Miseveth's VA benefits or, in the alternative, to transfer those benefits to Aelion. Appellant maintains that Section 5502 of Article 38 of the United States Code provides "the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the exclusive power to appoint a fiduciary to receive and distribute veterans' disability benefits" and "extensive authority for supervising those appointed fiduciaries." Appellant...