Download PDF
Back to Opinions Page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2005 ME 8
Docket: Cum-03-604
Argued: September 22, 2004
Decided: January 18, 2005
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
GUARDIANSHIP OF K-M
CALKINS, J.
[¶1] Derryl Denise K-M appeals from the adjudication of incapacity and the appointment of a guardian and conservator for her by the Cumberland County Probate Court (Childs, J.). She argues that (1) 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-303(b) (1998) violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions; (2) the court's order pursuant to section 5-303(b), requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation without an evidentiary hearing, violated her due process rights; and (3) the Probate Court erred in adjudicating her an incapacitated person. We disagree with her contentions, and we affirm the judgment.
I. PROCEDURE AND FACTS
[¶2] K-M lives at her condominium in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the winter and in the summer she stays at a family camp in Bridgton.[1] K-M is estranged from her sister, Diane, who is a part owner of the family camp and a joint owner with K-M of various equities. In January 2002, Diane petitioned a New Hampshire court to commit K-M. The court denied the petition finding that there was no evidence that K-M was mentally ill and at risk from her own actions.
A. Petition for Guardianship
[¶3] A few months after a New Hampshire court declined to commit K-M, Diane filed a petition with the Probate Court for her appointment as K-M's guardian and conservator. The petition alleged that K-M suffers from a mental illness, is at risk of physical harm because of her behavior, and is unable to manage her property and affairs. The petition reported that she assaulted and harassed neighbors and was unable to arrange for home repairs, thereby living without indoor plumbing. Additionally, the petition stated that K-M claims to hear voices and believes that others are spying on her and videotaping her. The petition also contained allegations concerning finances, such as K-M's failure to pay taxes and condominium fees. The petition further stated that K-M was the joint owner of shares of valuable stock but that she had failed or refused to return or redeem the stock of companies that had merged.
[¶4] The Probate Court appointed a visitor who served K-M with notice of the petition.[2] The visitor reported to the Probate Court that K-M asked for copies of the statutes that were cited in the petition. When the visitor suggested she was not entitled to such copies, she said she would insist upon it. She declined to be interviewed by the visitor. The visitor further reported that K-M was "suspicious because of