Friday, December 27, 2013

Supreme Court upholds ruling in guardianship case

Supreme Court upholds ruling in guardianship case
Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 12:00 pm
A state representative from Stoddard has lost his second appeal to the N.H. Supreme Court to recoup legal fees in a guardianship dispute over his elderly mother. On Friday, the N.H. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mary Louise Eaton and her guardian, son Michael R. Eaton, in a dispute with Daniel A. Eaton.

Subscription Required

If you are unsure about the type of account you may already have or have any questions regarding subscriptions, please contact the Circulation Department at 603-352-1234, ext. 1300 or by email at circulation@keenesentinel.com or webmaster@keenesentinel.com.
For other print only subscription offers available, please click here to subscribe.
An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety.
Click here if you already have a login to the site.
Login now
Need a print or online subscription?
Subscribe
First time logging in?
Already a print subscriber?

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Since 2010, Daniel A. Eaton of Stoddard has tried to reclaim $45,000 he said he spent in legal fees trying to become his mother’s guardian. The issue in the current appeal was solely about whether Eaton had authority to act as his mother’s power of attorney.
The high court also ruled against Eaton in the guardianship matter in April 2012.
He and another brother, Dean J. Eaton of Keene, had each sought guardianship of their ailing mother, who has dementia, in 2010.
At the time, Daniel Eaton said his mother had asked him to become involved in the guardianship proceedings, telling him she would pay for his legal fees. He maintained he was acting on her wishes.
However, Eaton’s brothers disagreed, saying that Daniel Eaton was acting in his own interest.
This belief was first upheld by the 8th Circuit Court Probate Division in Keene in 2010.
In 2012, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys sided with Daniel Eaton, arguing that denying the payment of $45,000 created “financial disincentives” for filing guardianship petitions, court documents stated.
According to state law in guardianship cases, “the court costs and fees for the counsel and resource person shall be borne by the proposed ward.”
But a lawyer for Daniel Eaton’s brother Michael maintained that Michael was the guardian, whereas Daniel was a petitioner. As such, he did not have the same rights as a guardian in the case and was not entitled to the money.
The Supreme Court opinion issued Friday concluded the lower court was correct in its 2010 ruling.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.