Guardianships

August 13, 2010

The Petition In A New York Article 81Guardianship Proceeding Sets The Tone

Every New York Article 81 Guardianship Proceeding involves its own unique set of facts and circumstances.

These variables encompass things such as the nature and extent of the alleged incapacity, the relationship between the Alleged Incapacitated Person (“AIP”) and his or her relatives, companions and friends; the assets and income available to the AIP; the existence, availability and use or abuse of Advance Directives such as a Power of Attorney; and emergency situations that may have an immediate impact on the AIP such as a medical crisis or legal proceeding in the form of a foreclosure or landlord-tenant summary eviction proceeding.

When a Guardianship proceeding is started, the first document that is prepared and presented to the Court is the Petition. New York Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.08 provides details as to the information that is required to be provided in the Petition. These items include basic data such as the name, age, address and telephone number of the AIP, as well as similar information regarding the Petitioner, any persons with whom the AIP resides, and the AIP’s next of kin.

Most importantly, the Petition also sets forth more substantive information dealing with a description of the AIP’s functional level, ability to manage activities of daily living and the powers that the Guardian is seeking.

Essentially, the Petition provides the means by which the Petitioner can tell the story about the AIP and why the AIP needs a Guardian and why the Court should appoint the Petitioner to be the Guardian. All of the relevant information regarding the Guardianship case as initially presented by the Petitioner should be set forth clearly and succintly. The Petition is the first document which the Court and all the parties involved in the proceeding will receive and read. Thus, the Petition sets the tone for the proceeding and the groundwork for the appointment of a Guardian.

Additionally, in the event that the AIP’s assets are being improperly handled or misappropriated or the AIP is in danger of being evicted from his or her home, the Petition can request temporary and immediate relief in the form of a Temporary Guardian, the freezing of assets or a Court Ordered injunction.

August 3, 2010

Title To Assets Plays An Important Role In New York Estate Planning, Estate Settlement And Guardianship Proceedings

by Jules M. Haas

Issues concerning the title and ownership of assets will appear time and again in the areas of estate planning, estate settlement and guardianship.

When evaluating and planning an estate or Last Will, it is essential not only to know the assets that an individual may own, but also the manner in which they are owned or titled. A Last Will essentially controls the disposition of assets that are held by a person in his or her name alone. However, there are numerous alternative types of ownership such as joint tenancies and “In Trust For” accounts also known as Totten Trusts. Other assets such as life insurance policies or retirement accounts (IRA’s, 401K’s) may have designated beneficiaries. These alternative ownership types of assets pass upon death to the other named owner or designated beneficiary. This alternative transfer is typically referred to as having the asset pass by “Operation of Law”. These assets are not controlled by the Last Will.

A person’s estate plan must reflect the actual ownership of the assets. If a provision in a Last Will provides for the disposition of an asset in a certain way and that asset is transferred in a different manner by operation of law, the decedent’s estate plan will be disrupted and estate settlement can be complicated by conflict and litigation. Such was the result in In Re Estate of Flaherty, a case decided by the 3rd Dept Appellate Division (883 NYS2d 812, 2009). In Flaherty, the decedent purchased property and had the deed recite that a one-half interest of the property was owned by one of her daughters and her son-in-law and the other one-half was in the name of the decedent, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Upon the death of the decedent the daughter and the son-in-law contended that the decedent’s half interest in the property passed to them by operation of law as the surviving joint tenant. The decedent’s estate contended that the decedent’s one-half interest was not jointly owned with the daughter and son-in-law, but passed separately to the decedent’s estate to be paid to a different beneficiary. Ultimately, the Court found that the property interests were joint and passed to the daughter and son-in-law and not under the decedent’s Last Will.

Property rights and interests are also an important consideration in Article 81 Guardianship Proceedings. A property management Guardian may be faced with issues such as the validity of a joint owner’s interest in property or a beneficiary designation on a life insurance policy or retirement plan. Additionally, in the event joint assets or other assets that would pass upon death by operation of law need to be liquidated during the Guardianship to pay debts or transferred for Medicaid planning purposes, the property interests of the joint owners or beneficiaries need to be considered and accounted for.

July 7, 2010

New York Court Appoints A Guardian And Annuls Marriage And Voids Deed

by Jules M. Haas

New York Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 provides the guidelines and the procedure to appoint a Guardian for Personal Needs and Property Management for persons with incapacities. Provisions of the law also provide the Court with the power to modify, amend or revoke different types of transactions or documents entered into while a person was incapacitated such as a contract, power of attorney or health care proxy. New York Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.29(d).

In many instances the incapacitated person is elderly. The transfer of property by means of a power of attorney or the conveyance of real estate by deed where the power or deed was executed while the person was incapacitated may not reflect the incapacitated person’s estate plan. In fact, such transfers may result in giving assets to individuals that would otherwise not be beneficiaries of choice.

A recent example of a Court exercising its authority to void certain transactions entered into by an incapacitated person is found in Matter of Jerry M. v. Geraldine P., decided by Justice Wilma Guzman on June 15, 2010 (Bronx Supreme Court), as reported in The New York Law Journal on June 18, 2010, p. 18. In her decision, Judge Guzman found that Geraldine P. was incapacitated and appointed a Guardian for personal needs and property management. In addition, the Judge annulled a marriage that Geraldine P. had entered into and voided a deed she had signed transferring her home. The Court found that Geraldine did not understand the nature and consequences of either the marriage or the deed transfer.

Improper control over the affairs of an incapacitated person is often the setting for what later turns out to be a Will contest or estate dispute when assets intended to be bequeathed or otherwise transferred upon death to loved ones are directed to other parties prior to death. An interesting aspect of the Court’s powers relating to the revocation of documents concerns a person’s Last Will and Testament. In the past there had been occasions where the Guardianship Court invalidated a Last Will and Testament that the Court had found to be executed while a person was incapacitated. However, a recent amendment to Section 81.29 (d) of the New York Mental Hygiene Law prohibits the revocation or invalidation of a Last Will or Codicil during the lifetime of the incapacitated person. Thus, the validity of a Last Will must be challenged after the person’s death during the probate proceeding after the Will is filed in the Surrogate’s Court.

June 24, 2010

New York Article 81 Guardian Is Directed To Pay Fee Of Court Evaluator From Guardian’s Commission

by Jules M. Haas

In a New York Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 Guardianship proceeding, the Court typically appoints a Court Evaluator. The Court Evaluator performs an independent investigation and assists the Court in determining whether a person is incapacitated and who should be appointed as Guardian. The Court Evaluator’s fee is often paid from the funds of the Incapacitated Person, although the fee may be paid by the petitioner.

In a recent decision, Matter of A.M., dated 6/1/10 reported in the New York Law Journal, on Friday, June 11, 2010, p. 27, Justice Alexander W. Hunter, Jr. directed that a successor Guardian pay the fee of a Court Evaluator from funds the Guardian had collected on behalf of the Incapacitated Person. The Guardian had previously collected sufficient funds to pay the Court Evaluator’s fee but had spent the funds by making payments which included paying itself fees on account of the Guardian’s statutory commission. In effect, the Court ruled that the Court Evaluator’s court awarded fee took priority over the subsequently earned commission.

Judge Hunter’s decision shows that a Court Evaluator serves an important role in Guardianship proceedings. The information presented to the Court by the Court Evaluator is vital for a full determination.

The duties of the Court Evaluator include interviewing the Alleged Incapacitated Person, explaining the proceeding to the Alleged Incapacitated Person, determining whether the Alleged Incapacitated Person wants legal counsel, interviewing the petitioner and preparing a report and recommendations for the Court.

The Article 81 Guardianship statutes establish a procedure for the appointment of a property and/or personal needs Guardian that is beneficial and protective of the Incapacitated Person. These proceedings require a hearing in front of the Court and testimony from witnesses. Many times the hearings are contested and deal with disputes regarding incapacity, competing family members or others who desire to be appointed as Guardian, and issues concerning the misappropriation of the Alleged Incapacitated Person’s assets.