2017 IL App (3d) 160248
Opinion filed August 29, 2017
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2017
In re ESTATE OF DEBORAH BEETLER, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of the 9th Judicial Circuit,
An Alleged Disabled Person, ) Knox County, Illinois,
)
(David E. Beetler, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant, ) Appeal No. 3-16-0248
) Circuit No. 13-P-187
v. )
)
Tricia Bledsoe, ) Honorable
) Raymond A. Cavanaugh,
Respondent-Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Schmidt specially concurred, with opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 In 2013, Deborah Beetler executed a power of attorney authorizing her husband, David E.
Beetler, to make her health care decisions. In 2014, the trial court appointed another person to
serve as plenary guardian over Deborah’s estate and also authorized the guardian to remove
Deborah’s person from David’s care and place her in a residential facility. In 2016, David
requested the court’s permission for David to make arrangements to reline Deborah’s dentures
contrary to the wishes of the court-appointed guardian. The court denied David’s request after
finding the guardianship implicitly terminated David’s authority to make any health care
decisions for his wife after the plenary guardianship was established in 2014. We reverse.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 On August 29, 2013, Deborah Beetler (Deborah) executed an Illinois statutory short form
power of attorney for health care giving her husband, David E. Beetler (David), permission to act
as her attorney for purposes of making her health care decisions. The document authorized David
to make any and all decisions for Deborah concerning her “personal care, medical treatment,
hospitalization and health care.” This document became effective upon its execution on
August 29, 2013, and remained effective until Deborah’s death. However, Deborah did not
execute a power of attorney designating someone to handle her estate or financial affairs.
¶4 A. 2014 Guardianship Proceedings
¶5 On October 28, 2013, Barbara Foster, a caseworker for Alternatives for Older Adults,
petitioned the court to appoint a guardian over the person and estate of Deborah, a disabled
person. According to the petition, Deborah was 64 years old in 2013 and suffered from dementia
resulting in her status as a disabled adult.
¶6 Foster’s petition for temporary guardianship requested that the court enter an order
appointing Deborah’s daughter, Tricia Bledsoe, to serve as temporary guardian of Deborah’s
person and estate, pending a full hearing on the allegations contained in the petition for plenary
guardianship. The petition for temporary guardianship alleged Deborah’s current caretaker was
neglecting and physically abusing Deborah.
¶7 The petition for plenary guardianship, filed on the same date, requested the court to
designate Bledsoe as the plenary guardian of Deborah’s person and estate. Neither petition
2
advised the court that Deborah had executed a power of attorney for heath care naming David
Beetler as her agent. Foster’s attorney filed a proof of service certifying that David and
Deborah’s two children were served with copies of the petitions for temporary and plenary
guardianship and a notice of hearing by mail on October 28, 2013.
¶8 On October 28, 2013, the court entered an order appointing Bledsoe as temporary
guardian of Deborah’s person and estate. The court order dated October 28, 2013, specified that
“the authority of the Temporary Guardian under this Order shall supersede all agencies executed
on behalf of Deborah pursuant to the Illinois Power of Attorney Act.” The court also appointed a
guardian ad litem for Deborah. On October 28, 2013, Deborah was removed from her home and
placed in a residential care facility. To date, she has remained in the residential care facility.
¶9 On February 25, 2014, David filed an answer to Foster’s petition and counterpetition
requesting the court to appoint David as Deborah’s plenary guardian for both her person and
estate. On April 3, 2014, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning Foster’s
petition for plenary guardianship and David’s counterpetition. During the evidentiary hearing
conducted on April 3, 2014, Judge Standard received testimony from approximately 14
witnesses, including Foster, Bledsoe, David, and various relatives and health care professionals.
¶ 10 During the 2014 hearing, Foster explained to the court that, in August 2013, she
investigated reports that Deborah had been wandering away from her home on multiple
occasions due to inadequate supervision. As part of her investigation, Foster visited Deborah and
David’s home on multiple occasions. On the first visit, a woman named Pat Turner, a family
friend, was present outside Deborah’s home. Turner spoke to Foster and told Foster she could
not speak with Deborah at that time because Deborah suffers from dementia. Foster then
approached the front door, knocked, and spoke to Deborah. During this brief conversation,
3
Foster observed Deborah had fresh blood on her forehead and clothing. Shortly thereafter,
Turner and her husband both directed Foster to leave the premises and instructed Foster to
contact David for information about Deborah’s well-being. Foster complied with their request.
¶ 11 A few days later, Foster returned to Deborah’s home and spoke face-to-face with David.
David advised Foster that while he was away from the home, a person named Jim Clayton
provided supervision for Deborah. The record reveals David is employed during the weekdays
and must be away from the household. During David’s work hours, David believed Clayton was
supervising Deborah’s activities.
¶ 12 According to David, Clayton lived in the basement of the Beetler home. During Foster’s
visit, David allowed Foster to speak with Deborah. Foster attempted to evaluate Deborah for
competency. Foster described David as polite but very guarded.
¶ 13 Foster returned to the Beetler home on another occasion in late August 2013. A woman
named Connie Turner, a relative, was present at this time and answered the door. While Foster
was seated on the couch having a “very cordial” conversation with Deborah, Deborah
unexpectedly became agitated and “attacked” Foster. Foster left the residence shortly thereafter
to diffuse the situation.
¶ 14 During the 2014 evidentiary hearing, the court received testimony from over 10
witnesses, including friends, family, and Deborah’s caregivers. For example, Kim Norville
testified she was a family friend and witnessed David and Deborah engaged in a physical
confrontation as the couple was travelling down the roadway in their vehicle. According to
Norville, David seemed to be yelling at his wife and beating on the steering wheel as he drove.
The court received testimony about David’s care plan for his wife which involved volunteer
caregivers that had a prior relationship with Deborah through connections with her church,
4
neighborhood, and family. This network of volunteers spent time supervising Deborah when
David found it necessary to be away from his wife due to work or other commitments. The court
also received information from current and past caregivers describing Deborah’s mental state and
combative nature at times. The court received undisputed testimony indicating David has a
calming effect on Deborah, causing her to be less agitated in his presence at times.
¶ 15 The court also received testimony from both Bledsoe and David in support of their
separate requests to be named as Deborah’s guardian. Bledsoe advised the court of the need for
residential placement due to Deborah’s advanced dementia, but conceded her mother trusted
David. David expressed concerns about the inadequate care he perceived Deborah was currently
receiving from the residential care facility, his desire to maintain her dignity and his hopes of
avoiding further decline of her mental focus by improving her quality of life.
¶ 16 After the extensive evidentiary hearing in 2014, Judge Standard found that Deborah
lacked the capacity to make decisions concerning the care of her person and the management of
her finances due to her dementia. The court also found that placement in a secure facility under
24 hour supervision, as recommended in a physician’s report, was in Deborah’s best interests.
The court judiciously noted the difference in expressed perspectives of David, a devoted spouse,
and Bledsoe, a devoted daughter. The trial court’s finding did not contain an express or implied
conclusion that either David or Bledsoe had been abusive towards Deborah in the past. The
court’s findings addressed the “tragic situation” resulting from the progression of Deborah’s
disease and commented on the “anguish” resulting from Deborah’s circumstances. After making
certain findings of fact, the trial court entered an order on April 22, 2014, selecting Bledsoe as
the person to serve as the plenary guardian for Deborah’s person and estate.
5
¶ 17 The court’s announced findings and written order dated April 22, 2014, were silent and
did not explicitly address the prior agency created by Deborah pursuant to the Illinois Power of
Attorney Act (Power of Attorney Act) (755 ILCS 45/1-1 et seq. (West 2016)). The court order
granted Bledsoe “the power and authority to place the Ward in a residential facility,” a decision
David hoped to avoid with an alternative plan for home health care. The trial court found
David’s plan to be unrealistic in light of the medical testimony the court received. Before ending
the proceeding, the trial court provided compassionate guidance urging the family that was
divided on the issue of residential care to try to get beyond their differences and “stand at
[Deborah’s] bedside side by side.”
¶ 18 The April 22, 2014, court order dictated that “Letters of Guardianship shall issue in
accordance with the provisions of this Order.” On April 22, 2014, the deputy circuit clerk issued
letters of guardianship. The letters state, in relevant part, that Bledsoe, as the plenary guardian,
shall have the powers “[t]o arrange for and consent to any and all medical and/or dental tests
and/or examinations which are reasonably required for the ward” and “[t]o consent to medical
and/or dental treatment on behalf of the ward; including surgery, as is reasonably required for the
ward, except where contrary to law.” The letters were not signed by a judge.
¶ 19 B. 2016 Health Care Request
¶ 20 On February 12, 2016, nearly two years after Judge Standard appointed Bledsoe to act as
her mother’s plenary guardian, David filed a motion in the circuit court seeking an order
allowing him to arrange for certain dental services pursuant to his authority as Deborah’s power
of attorney for health care. The matter was assigned to Judge Cavanaugh.
¶ 21 On March 1, 2016, David filed an amended motion to correct a pagination error. In the
amended motion, David stated he desired for his wife to have her denture relined because
6
Deborah was “having difficulty eating because of the placement of her teeth, gums, and
denture.” The amended motion informed the trial court that Deborah’s plenary guardian,
Bledsoe, opposed the dental procedural David felt was necessary for his wife’s well-being.
¶ 22 David attached an affidavit to the amended motion to allow dental services from Dr.
Adam Welty, DMD, in support of the proposed dental procedure. In the affidavit, Dr. Welty
stated that he visited Deborah at the nursing facility and examined Deborah’s maxillary denture.
Dr. Welty determined the denture was loose fitting and provided no retention. Dr. Welty stated
that in his experience, most patients in long-term care facilities lose weight and their dentures no
longer fit due to loss of tone, muscle, and fatty tissue in their mouths. Dr. Welty recommended
that Deborah receive a reline procedure, which essentially refits the existing denture. Dr. Welty
stated that the procedure does not always ensure retention and denture adhesive may still be
necessary. However, Dr. Welty opined that in Deborah’s case, a reline would dramatically
improve the fit of Deborah’s upper denture. Finally, Dr. Welty stated that his observations and
opinions were based on his education and experience and his opinions were made to a reasonable
degree of dental certainty.
¶ 23 On February 22, 2016, Bledsoe filed a response to the motion to allow dental services. In
the response, Bledsoe argued that the proposed denture reline procedure would not be in
Deborah’s best interest due to her progression into end-stage dementia that resulted in her current
hospice care. Further, Bledsoe alleged solid food creates a choking hazard for Deborah. Thus,
according to Bledsoe’s response, Deborah did not require a denture for consumption because she
was on a pureed diet. Bledsoe’s response indicates Bledsoe did not agree that Deborah had
difficulty eating on the pureed diet. Bledsoe stated Deborah was unable to follow instructions or
7
to report pain that could develop with a possible denture reline due to Deborah’s nonverbal status
as an end-stage dementia patient.
¶ 24 On April 8, 2016, Judge Cavanaugh conducted an evidentiary hearing on David’s
amended motion to allow dental services for his wife. The court heard testimony from Dr. Welty
on behalf of David concerning the proposed denture reline procedure and the benefits it would
provide to Deborah. Marcy Olmsted, R.N., Deborah’s case manager at hospice, testified the
proposed procedure would have a negative impact on Deborah. David and Bledsoe provided
their own testimony to the trial court.
¶ 25 After hearing all of the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys, the court found the
denture reline might provide cosmetic benefits for Deborah but would not be in Deborah’s best
medical interests. Further, the court order dated April 8, 2016, found, as a matter of law:
“That the Court’s Order dated April 22, 2014, appointing Tricia Bledsoe
as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Deborah Beetler, obviates and supersedes
any Illinois Power of Attorney for Health Care executed by Deborah Beetler.”
¶ 26 On May 5, 2016, David filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial
of his amended motion to allow dental services filed pursuant to his authority as Deborah’s
power of attorney for health care.
¶ 27 ANALYSIS
¶ 28 In this appeal, David argues Deborah’s 2013 decision to designate David as her agent for
purposes of making her health care decisions was not extinguished by the 2014 order appointing
Bledsoe as plenary guardian of Deborah’s person and estate. Bledsoe submits the 2014
8
guardianship implicitly revoked David’s authority to make any health care decisions for Deborah
after the court found Deborah to be a disabled adult and appointed a guardian on her behalf.
¶ 29 Before Foster filed a petition under section 11a-3 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate
Act) (755 ILCS 5/11a-3 (West 2012)), Deborah made her own arrangements by selecting David
as the person she trusted to make her future health care decisions, if necessary. To date, no
person has filed a petition in the circuit court pursuant to section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney
Act (755 ILCS 45/2-10) (West 2016)), seeking to set aside or requesting a judicial determination
that David’s agency should be terminated.
¶ 30 Hence, in this appeal, we focus on a very narrow issue. Namely, this court must
determine whether Deborah’s 2013 decision to designate David as her agent for purposes of
making her health care decisions under the Power of Attorney Act survives the subsequent 2014
judicial decision appointing Bledsoe as the plenary guardian. The issue in this appeal involves a
question of law subject to de novo review. See In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519, 552 (2010)
(“Statutory construction presents a question of law which we review de novo.”).
¶ 31 With great foresight, our lawmakers provided statutory guidance for courts facing the
precise issue presented in this appeal involving the interface between the Power of Attorney Act
(755 ILCS 45/1-1 et seq. (West 2016)) and a guardianship proceeding for a disabled adult
pursuant to the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2016)). It is clear that David’s
authority to make any health care decisions for his wife arises solely out of an agency
relationship created by his wife under the Power of Attorney Act in 2013.
¶ 32 The Power of Attorney Act provides that an individual, such as Deborah, “has the right to
appoint an agent to make property, financial, personal, and health care decisions for the
individual.” 755 ILCS 45/2-1 (West 2016). The Power of Attorney Act establishes that the
9
principal may empower another person to act as their agent “throughout the principal’s lifetime,
including during periods of disability” and the principal must “have confidence that third parties
will honor the agent’s authority at all times.” 755 ILCS 45/2-1 (West 2016). Section 2-5 of the
Power of Attorney Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Unless the agency states an earlier termination date, the agency continues until
the death of the principal, notwithstanding any lapse of time, the principal’s
disability or incapacity or appointment of a guardian for the principal after the
agency is signed.” 755 ILCS 45/2-5 (West 2016).
Next, section 2-6(a) of the Power of Attorney Act states:
“All acts of the agent within the scope of the agency during any period of
disability, incapacity or incompetency of the principal have the same effect and
inure to the benefit of and bind the principal and his or her successors in interest
as if the principal were competent and not a person with a disability.” 755 ILCS
45/2-6(a) (West 2016).
The statutory scheme makes it clear that this agency is strictly protected from judicial
intervention except under a very narrow set of rigid procedural circumstances. Specifically,
section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“(a) Upon petition by any interested person (including the agent), with
such notice to interested persons as the court directs and a finding by the court
that the principal lacks either the capacity to control or the capacity to revoke the
agency, the court may construe a power of attorney, review the agent’s conduct,
and grant appropriate relief including compensatory damages.
10
(b) If the court finds that the agent is not acting for the benefit of the
principal in accordance with the terms of the agency or that the agent’s action or
inaction has caused or threatens substantial harm to the principal’s person or
property in a manner not authorized or intended by the principal, the court may
order a guardian of the principal’s person or estate to exercise any powers of the
principal under the agency, including the power to revoke the agency, or may
enter such other orders without appointment of a guardian as the court deems
necessary to provide for the best interests of the principal.” 755 ILCS 45/2-10
(West 2016).
¶ 33 We consider the statutory mandates associated with a plenary guardianship proceeding
for a purported disabled adult. Section 11a-17(c) of the Probate Act recognizes the agency
created by a valid power of attorney may survive a disability and the appointment of a plenary
guardian. 755 ILCS 5/11a-17(c) (West 2016). Section 11a-17(c) of the Probate Act provides that
“[a]bsent [a] court order pursuant to the Illinois Power of Attorney Act directing a guardian to
exercise powers of the principal under an agency that survives disability, the guardian has no
power, duty, or liability with respect to any personal or health care matters covered by the
agency.” (Emphases added.) 755 ILCS 5/11a-17(c) (West 2016). Thus, the Probate Act is
entirely consistent with section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act, cited above.
¶ 34 Based on the representations of fact emphasized by Bledsoe’s attorney during oral
arguments before this court, we recognize that both David and Bledsoe care deeply about
Deborah’s comfort, care, and well-being, but face significant challenges due to her advancing
illness in spite of her young age. As Bledsoe’s counsel pointed out during the argument before
this court, once Bledsoe placed her mother in the residential facility in 2013, David and Bledsoe
11
have not had any noteworthy conflicts over Deborah’s day-to-day healthcare, with the exception
of the denture issue that arose in 2016.
¶ 35 Bledsoe concedes that the 2014 order did not explicitly terminate David’s status as the
power of attorney for health care for Deborah. Importantly, since becoming her mother’s plenary
guardian, Bledsoe has not petitioned the court to explicitly revoke her mother’s 2013 power of
attorney as contemplated by section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act. 1 Yet, Bledsoe argues
that the 2014 order implicitly revoked the agency relationship under the Power of Attorney Act
and relies heavily on the decision of In re Estate of Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d 293 (2005). We do
not find the rationale in Doyle to be persuasive and decline to follow this Fourth District
decision.
¶ 36 In Doyle, the trial court appointed a son-in-law as plenary guardian of his mother-in-
law’s estate. Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 296-97. On appeal, the daughter argued, among other
things, that the order appointing the son-in-law as the guardian was void because her mother
previously executed a power of attorney giving the daughter the exclusive authority to make
decisions affecting mother’s property. Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 299.
¶ 37 The appellate court found the judicial determination to appoint a plenary guardian
“implicitly revoked” the daughter’s agency pursuant to section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney
Act. Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 299. The appellate court explained that, although no petition was
filed under section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act, all interested parties in the case were
notified and had knowledge other persons were asking to become guardians of the disabled
person’s estate. Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 299-300. The reviewing court noted the trial court
heard testimony from a variety of witnesses before granting the request for guardianship. Doyle,
1
Moreover, Foster’s 2014 petition for plenary guardianship did not request the trial court to
explicitly revoke Deborah’s 2013 power of attorney in favor of David for her health care decisions.
12
362 Ill. App. 3d at 300. Thus, the appellate court concluded that while the trial court did not
expressly make reference to section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act, the court’s order
appointing a plenary guardian implicitly met the requirements of section 2-10 of the Power of
Attorney Act and stripped the daughter of her prior authority. Doyle, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 301.
¶ 38 We decline to follow the holding in Doyle as contrary to the statutory scheme. Instead,
we adopt the rationale expressed by the dissent in that case based on overriding public policy
concerns in addition to the mandates of the statutory construction. The dissent explained:
“The whole idea of the Durable Power of Attorney Law is that the
decision of a competent principal to appoint an agent should not be easily
overcome. The fact that the court would not have selected the agent selected by
the principal is irrelevant; what is important is what the principal thought best, not
what the court thinks is best. The legislature would not have enacted the Durable
Power of Attorney Law if the solution was the appointment of a guardian of the
estate; guardians of the estate could be appointed before the Durable Power of
Attorney Law was enacted. The suggestion that whenever a guardian of an estate
is appointed any exiting durable power of attorney is revoked is contrary to the
spirit and the letter of the Durable Power of Attorney Law.” Doyle, 362 Ill. App.
3d at 306 (Cook, J., dissenting). 2
¶ 39 We are unwilling to ignore Deborah’s unchallenged power of attorney based on implied
assumptions arising out of the 2014 order entered by Judge Standard. Based on strong public
policy considerations, we hold that the appointment of a plenary guardian in 2014 by Judge
Standard did not automatically extinguish Deborah’s preexisting and unchallenged power of
2
We note that the Illinois Supreme Court referred to the Doyle decision in a footnote in Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d
at 540 n. 9. However, the Illinois Supreme Court cited Doyle only to explain the procedural posture of the case and
did not address the merits of that decision.
13
attorney naming someone, other than a judicially appointed guardian, as her designated agent for
health care purposes.
¶ 40 Finally, we consider Bledsoe’s argument that the letters of guardianship issued by the
deputy circuit clerk in 2014 contained the explicit language necessary to revoke David’s
authority to make health care decisions for his wife. This argument ignores the April 22, 2014,
guardianship order signed by Judge Standard and expressly directed the clerk to prepare the
letters of guardianship “in accordance with the provisions of this Order.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 41 In this case, the letters of guardianship issued by the deputy circuit clerk contained
language beyond the terms contained in the court order dated April 22, 2014. This order gave
Bledsoe the power to place her mother in a residential care facility without addressing Bledsoe’s
authority to make dental care choices for her mother. Therefore, we reject Bledsoe’s argument
that the letters of guardianship issued by the deputy circuit clerk should be interpreted as a
judicial order revoking David’s status as Deborah’s power of attorney for health care. See 755
ILCS 45/2-10(g) (West 2014); 755 ILCS 5/11a-17(c) (West 2014).
¶ 42 For these reasons, we hold that absent a written court order explicitly directing a plenary
guardian to exercise the powers of the principal under the agency pursuant to the Power of
Attorney Act, the appointment of a plenary guardian does not automatically revoke an existing
power of attorney for health care. The decision regarding whether Deborah should receive the
proposed denture reline procedure is clearly within the scope of the unchallenged power of
attorney for health care document that Deborah executed in 2013 giving David the authority to
make such decisions.
14
¶ 43 On this basis, we reverse the trial court’s order dated April 8, 2016, denying David’s
amended motion to allow dental services for Deborah and remand the matter to the trial court for
entry of an order consistent with this decision.
¶ 44 CONCLUSION
¶ 45 The judgment of the trial court of Knox County is reversed and remanded for entry of an
order consistent with this decision.
¶ 46 Order reversed and remanded.
¶ 47 JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring.
¶ 48 I concur in the judgment. I do not concur in the majority’s discussion of Doyle. Supra
¶¶ 36-39. The facts in Doyle were sufficiently dissimilar to the facts in this case that I would
simply find Doyle inapposite.
15