Sorting Through Pa.'s Guardianship System: An Option for Your Loved One
Pursuit of a guardian to oversee that person and his finances may be an appropriate and effective course of action. A guardian can be appointed by the court to make decisions for another.
May 13, 2022 at 11:11 AM
9 minute read
Considering Guardianship
A situation may arise where someone is unable to make medical or financial decisions for himself or herself and has no legally designated decision-maker. Perhaps that person never appointed a power of attorney, never had the capacity to appoint a power of attorney, or has a power of attorney who is no longer appropriate or has acted improperly. Under such circumstances, pursuit of a guardian to oversee that person and his finances may be an appropriate and effective course of action. A guardian can be appointed by the court to make decisions for another.
The law allows "any person interested in the alleged incapacitated person's welfare" to petition for guardianship. That petitioner bears the burden of proving the guardianship is necessary. The standard of proof for establishing a guardianship is "clear and convincing evidence," which has been called the second highest standard of proof next to "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal proceedings. Thus, before pursuing guardianship, one should make sure they are able to show the following by clear and convincing evidence: incapacity; need for guardianship; and that there are not available, adequate, less restrictive alternatives to the guardianship. The petitioner should also consider who is the best person or persons to serve as guardian.
Preparing, Pleading and Filing the Petition
When filing a petition in the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, it is important to pay close attention to the Orphans' Court rules and the guardianship statute, discussed above. The Orphans' Court has a particular set of rules that, if not strictly followed, can result in the court rejecting a petition or a delay in hearing the petition. In addition, each county in Pennsylvania has their own set of local rules that must be followed. This section gives a brief overview of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court rules requirements for a guardianship petition.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGovernment, May I Fix My GST Mistake? Regulations Offer Guidance on Generation-Skipping Tax Exemption Allocation Relief
9 minute readThe Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readPennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250