The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled on a guardianship case involving Mary D. Avery, an alleged incapacitated person. The court denied a petition from her son, Jimmy Dorsey, and his wife, Karen Dorsey, who sought to charge Avery's estate $79,790.99 in attorney fees. This decision has significant implications for guardianship proceedings and the rights of alleged incapacitated persons.
The case, docketed as 191 MDA 2025, arose from a dispute over the status and estate of Mary Avery, who had been living in South Carolina before moving to Pennsylvania. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction in guardianship cases, particularly when multiple states are involved.
Background
Mary D. Avery has two adult children: Jimmy Dorsey, who resides in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Kecia Dorsey-Rosa, who lives in the Bronx, New York. After the death of her husband in 2000, Avery moved to South Carolina, where she lived for nearly two decades. In May 2021, after a long period of estrangement, she reached out to her son Jimmy for help, expressing feelings of confusion and a desire for someone to take charge of her affairs.
Following this call, the Dorseys traveled to South Carolina and decided to bring Avery back to Pennsylvania, believing it would be a temporary arrangement. Shortly after her arrival, Avery signed a power of attorney in favor of the Dorseys. However, her condition deteriorated, and she was later moved to an assisted living facility in Pennsylvania. In November 2021, she left the facility to stay with her daughter in New York and subsequently revoked the power of attorney granted to the Dorseys.
The Ruling
The Superior Court, led by Judge Kunselman, ruled against the Dorseys' petition for reimbursement of attorney fees. The court stated, "The jurisdictional question is non-waivable, and this Court may raise it sua sponte." The court identified a potential issue regarding whether Pennsylvania, New York, or South Carolina had jurisdiction over Avery's guardianship status and estate when the Dorseys initiated their petition.
As a result, the court remanded the case back to the orphans' court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate jurisdiction. The ruling highlighted that the orphans' court had previously imposed a permanent guardianship, even though the Dorseys had only requested a temporary one. This discrepancy raised concerns about the legality of the guardianship given Avery's absence from Pennsylvania during the proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has far-reaching implications for guardianship cases in Pennsylvania and potentially other states. It underscores the importance of establishing jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings, particularly when an alleged incapacitated person has connections to multiple states. The decision also raises questions about the rights of alleged incapacitated persons and the responsibilities of their guardians.
Moving forward, the ruling may affect how courts handle similar cases involving guardianship and jurisdictional disputes. It serves as a reminder that guardianship proceedings must adhere to proper legal protocols and that the rights of the individuals involved must be carefully considered.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the orphans' court for further hearings to establish the appropriate jurisdiction over Mary Avery's guardianship status. Depending on the findings of the evidentiary hearing, the Dorseys may have the opportunity to present their case again regarding the attorney fees. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals.