In re GUARDIANSHIP OF ATKINS 868 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. App. 2007) CASE BRIEF

In re GUARDIANSHIP OF ATKINS

868 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. App. 2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Conrad appeals a trial court order that appointed Thomas and Jeanne Atkins as co-guardians of Patrick Atkins and Patrick's estate.

FACTS: Patrick and Brett met and became romantically involved in 1978 when they attended Wabash College together. For twenty-five years - the men have lived together and have been in a committed and loving relationship. Patrick's family disapproved of his relationship but was able to reconcile his religious faith with his homosexuality and in 2000, Patrick wrote a letter to his family, begging them to accept him and welcome Bret. Jeanne believes that homosexuality is a grievous sin. In 1982, Patrick began working for the family business, and ultimately became the CEO of that business. Patrick's annual income prior to his incapacitation was approximately $130,000. Brett is a waiter, has been working for Puccini's restaurants for the past ten years, and has an annual income of approximately $31,800. Patrick and Brett pooled their earnings, depositing them into a checking account that was titled solely in Patrick's name but was used as a joint account for payment of living expenses. They used some of their accumulated savings to make extra mortgage payments and periodically transferred the remaining savings into a Charles Schwab account that was titled solely in Patrick's name. In 1992, they bought a house together as joint tenants, and the home is still titled jointly. While on a business trip to Atlanta, Patrick suffered a ruptured aneurysm and an acute subarachnoid hemorrhage in 2005.He remained in the ICU for six weeks. Patrick also suffered a stroke. Brett traveled to the Atlanta hospital to be with Patrick; Patrick's family did as well. Patrick's brother testified that Brett's mere presence in the hospital was 'hurting' Jeanne and offending her religious beliefs. Jeanne told Brett that if Patrick was going to return to his life with Brett after recovering from the stroke, she would prefer that he not recover at all. Patrick's family restricted Brett's visits to 15 minutes before closing. Hospital staff defied the family's instructions and allowed Brett to continue to visit with Patrick early in the morning and in the evenings, outside of regular visiting hours. Patrick was moved from the Atlanta hospital to a nursing facility. Brett visited Patrick daily. The staff observed that his visits had a positive impact on Patrick's recovery. Brett filed a guardianship petition, requesting that he be appointed guardian of Patrick's person and property. The Atkinses filed an answer to the petition, a motion to intervene, and a cross-petition requesting that they be appointed co-guardians of Patrick's person and property. Brett eventually voluntarily withdrew his request to be appointed guardian of Patrick's property, seeking only to be named as guardian of Patrick's person. The Atkinses eventually moved Patrick into their home and have refused to allow Brett to visit with Patrick since that time. At the time of trial, Patrick was able to walk, dress, bathe, and feed himself with some supervision or prompting, to read printed matter aloud with good accuracy but only 25% comprehension, to engage in simple conversations, to communicate his basic wants and needs, and to answer questions with some prompting. The trial court appointed the Atkinses as co-guardians of Patrick's person and estate, denied Brett's visitation unless permitted by the Atkinses, and denied Brett's attorney fee petition. The home was split equally between Brett and the guardianship estate. It also ordered that $16,469.73 - approximately one-third of the balance in Patrick's checking account - be disbursed to Brett as the portion attributable to his earnings and contributions, with the rest to be set off to the guardianship estate. It ordered the funds in the Charles Schwab account be set off to the guardianship estate, the household goods and other tangible property split equally between Brett and the guardianship estate and Patrick's interest as a shareholder in the family business to be set off to the family estate. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner