IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0647
Filed March 7, 2018
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF
R.K., Ward.
R.K.,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lyon County, Carl J. Petersen,
Judge.
A man appeals the order establishing his involuntary guardianship and
conservatorship. AFFIRMED.
Pamela A. Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Charles K. Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
The State petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and conservator over
an eighty-six-year-old man. Following a hearing, the district court granted the
petition and appointed the office of substitute decision maker to serve in both
capacities. On appeal, the ward contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to
support the need for a guardianship and conservatorship; (2) the district court
failed to consider the availability of third-party assistance; and (3) the district court
failed to consider the creation of a limited guardianship. We will address these
arguments together, reviewing the district court’s ruling on error. See Iowa Code
§ 633.33 (2015); In re Guardianship of M.D., 797 N.W.2d 121, 126-27 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2011). “Because our review is on error, the district court’s factual findings are
binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” M.D., 797 N.W.2d at 127.
The district court made detailed fact findings. The court found the elderly
man previously lived in a “dilapidated trailer” that “was uninhabitable to a person
of reasonable expectations.” The man was diagnosed with “dementia of
Alzheimer’s etiology.” A psychologist found him incompetent “to make
independent medical or other major life decisions” and found him in need of a
guardian. Later, a physician confirmed the Alzheimer’s diagnosis and noted the
man’s complete loss of short-term memory and his inability to care for himself.
According to the court, the physician “continues to assert that [the man] is a danger
to himself if left to his own means,” “needs 24/7 care to ensure his own safety and
comfort,” and “is not competent to make decisions regarding his physical care nor
his financial concerns.” The court cited corroborating evidence from two witnesses
at a care unit.
3
The court considered the man’s testimony and acknowledged he retained
his “long-term memory.” But, the court found he “clearly demonstrates he has no
short-term memory” and “does not appreciate his circumstances” or “the concerns
of his living conditions.”
Finally, the court addressed the man’s request to have his friend and
another individual assist him and his request to create a limited guardianship.1 The
court rejected these requests after finding neither individual “would agree to follow
the current medical diagnosis.” The court noted the office of substitute decision
maker was willing to serve as guardian and conservator and had the ability to do
so. See Iowa Code ch. 231E.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence. In light of the
findings, the district court did not err in concluding the legal standards for
appointment of a guardian and conservator were satisfied. See Iowa Code
§ 633.552(2)(a) (authorizing the filing of a petition for appointment of a guardian
for “a person whose decision-making capacity is so impaired that the person is
unable to care for the person’s personal safety or to attend to or provide for
necessities for the person”); id. § 633.566(2)(a) (authorizing the filing of a petition
for appointment of a conservator for “a person whose decision-making capacity is
so impaired that the person is unable to make, communicate, or carry out important
decisions concerning the person’s financial affairs”). The court also did not err in
denying the request for a limited guardianship and in appointing the office of
1
Their litigation involving the same man is the subject of a pending separate appeal. See
Ehrman v. Mayer, No. 17-0665.
4
substitute decision maker as the guardian and conservator. We affirm the district
court’s ruling in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.