Lindquist v. Mathias, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0213 (App. Div. I, February 28, 2023) (J. Weinzweig) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%20CA-CV%2022-0213%20-%20Lindquist%20v.%20Mathias%20-%20Opinion.pdf
INTERESTED PERSON NOT ENTITLED TO FILE ACTION ON BEHALF OF “VULNERABLE ADULT” UNDER ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES ACT UNTIL COURT FIRST DETERMINES THE INDIVIDUAL WHO NEEDS PROTECTION IS A “VULNERABLE ADULT.”
Eighty year old Mother with Parkinson's disease has three adult children fighting over who should have power of attorney to manage her financial affairs. Mother fights and defeats attempt of two of her sons to have a guardian and conservator appointed for her.
Subsequently these two sons petition court for leave to file a civil action under the Adult Protective Services Act [APSA] A.R.S. § 46-456 et. seq. against third son alleging Mother is a “vulnerable adult” being exploited by the third son. The trial court grants relief to two sons and denies Mother and third son's motion to dismiss finding a hearing would ultimately have to be had to determine if mother was indeed a “vulnerable adult.”
Thereafter the two sons filed a civil action against the third son for financial exploitation under the APSA. Subsequently, the trial court granted mother's petition to substitute into the case as the named plaintiff.
This action is Mother and third son's appeal of the trial court's order granting the two other sons the right to file a financial exploitation complaint under the APSA. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
The plain language of § 46-456(G) requires
the superior court to make three findings before
it grants an interested person's petition to sue
on behalf of a vulnerable adult: (1) the petitioner
must qualify as an “interested person” under A.R.S.
§ 14-1201(33), (2) the individual to be protected
must be a “vulnerable adult,” and (3) neither the
vulnerable adult nor “a duly appointed conservator
or personal representative” must have filed
an action against the proposed defendant under
The case is remanded to the trial court where an evidentiary hearing must first be held to determine if Mother is a “vulnerable adult” under § 46-451(A)(12) before a determination that an action may be brought by her sons on her behalf under the APSA.
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment