In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Kruse

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1859
Filed January 10, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF
LYNN KRUSE,

LYNN KRUSE,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Craig E. Block, Judge.

An adult appeals the appointment of a guardian and conservator.

AFFIRMED.

Amanda Green of Takekawa & Green, PLLC, Ankeny, for appellant.

Kevin Cunningham of Cunningham & Kelso, P.L.L.C., Urbandale, for

appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
2

BULLER, Judge.

Marylin (“Lynn”) Kruse appeals the order appointing her son as her guardian

and conservator. Finding substantial evidence supports the probate court’s

findings and conclusions, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Lynn is an eighty-two-year-old woman with two adult children, Eric

Weinberg and Kerstin Weinberg. Lynn lived alone at her house in West Des

Moines and, in 2020, she called the police seventeen times between February and

August to report people were either breaking into her house or pumping poisonous

gas into her residence. Police officers came to investigate on each occasion and

found no evidence supporting Lynn’s concerns.

In September 2022, Eric and Kerstin visited Lynn at her house for dinner.

When Eric arrived, he noticed Lynn had “all her suitcases packed,” but she told

Eric she wasn’t going anywhere. Lynn later told Kerstin she was leaving the

country with psychics. Lynn’s explanation concerned Eric and Kerstin because

Lynn had a history of corresponding with and regularly sending money to psychics.

While Lynn was in another room, Eric put Lynn’s suitcases in his truck to prevent

her from leaving. After consulting with a West Des Moines police officer, Eric

completed paperwork to have Lynn evaluated by a mental health hospital. That

hospital admitted Lynn but later transferred her to another medical center in

southeast Iowa. That October, the district court entered an emergency order

appointing Eric as Lynn’s temporary guardian and conservator.

Later that month, Lynn’s geriatric psychiatric provider prepared this letter:
3

[Lynn] is a patient of mine who has been on the geriatric inpatient
psychiatric unit . . . . This patient has a clinical history of both
schizophrenia and delusional disorder and has been hospitalized
[three] times prior to this dating back to the mid 2000[s]. Based on
the comprehensive history gathered throughout this patient’s
hospitalization we have been able to identify that the patient has
been struggling with delusionary symptoms throughout her life span.
It appears that she has adapted fairly well and has been able to
maintain her independence up until this point. The patient’s
delusions have gotten to the point where they are now interfering
with her ability to perform her activities of daily living. Specifically,
her home is now in disrepair and she is failing to shower (only bathing
[one or two] times a week with a washcloth). She does not shower
because she believes somebody will hear her showering and harm
her. She also believes that someone is pumping noxious gases into
her home and is isolating herself as a result. The patient’s family has
tried sending her meals, but this eventually resulted in the patient
believing her children are poisoning her food. This lack of bathing
has led to multiple urinary tract infections and due to the physical
effects of this, results in a worsening of her mental state. She has
very poor insight into the nature of her mental illness and is only
accepting treatment begrudgingly due to court committal. She is also
making poor choices and has been victim to scammers via mail.
Because her delusions are so prominent, they are interfering with her
ability to function independently putting her at further risk of decline
without increased social supports.

At the hearing on the pending petition for appointment of a guardian and

conservator, Eric was not surprised by any of the psychiatric provider’s statements

in the letter. He confirmed Lynn’s history of mental-health problems and

hospitalizations and noted: “This has been going on for seven, eight years and it’s

finally come to something has to be done.” Eric knew Lynn had been hospitalized

twice in 2019, though he was not aware they were mental-health commitments.

Eric noted Lynn believed people were trying to hurt her and had become “a

prisoner of her own home.” He also testified he found out about Lynn’s many

phone calls to law enforcement from a police officer. And he became aware—after

Lynn’s committal—that her home and car insurance had lapsed for non-payment.
4

Eric expressed concern about Lynn’s vulnerability to psychics “ripping her off”

because “she shouldn’t be sending them a blessed nickel.” Because Lynn refused

to live with either of her children, Eric agreed with Lynn’s psychiatric provider that

Lynn should reside in an assisted living facility; “I don’t see it possible to be back

in her house.”

Eric’s testimony also provided the foundation for admission of Lynn’s

December 2015 durable power of attorney and designation of health care

surrogate nominating Eric to act in her stead. He asked that the court appoint him

as guardian and conservator for Lynn.

Kerstin is an out-of-state resident and had been trying to contact Lynn for

months without success. When Eric went to Lynn’s home and asked why she was

not calling Kerstin, Lynn said she did not have her charger cord. Eric purchased

Lynn a cord and ensured the phone was charging. But when Kerstin still did not

hear from Lynn, she drove from Washington state to Lynn’s home. Lynn was very

slow to respond to Kerstin’s knocking but eventually came to the door. Kerstin

realized Lynn could not remember her passcode to her phone and was unable to

“interact[ ] with any of the text messages or calls that she was getting.” Kerstin

testified Eric had asked Lynn to move in with either of them, but Lynn refused.

Kerstin noted that, because Lynn seemed to be doing well in a structured

environment, an assisted living situation was the only option; Kerstin believed Lynn

returning to her own home was “not tenable.” She also supported appointing Eric

as guardian.

Lynn testified and generally denied needing assistance, medically or

financially. While Lynn acknowledged she could benefit from an occasional visit
5

from a cleaning person, she denied any mental-health problems. But Lynn’s

testimony indicated otherwise, as she described conspiracies and claimed she was

given instructions by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents. Lynn maintained

the postal service quit delivering her mail and lied to her about it, so she was

missing payments for lack of notice. She also testified her “telephone quit and

then when I tried to get back into it, I couldn’t” and Kerstin “took it and she was

supposed to get it fixed but I guess she didn’t.” Lynn noted she had income coming

in, though she “doe[sn’t] keep track of all these numbers” and acknowledged she

was having difficulty paying her bills—though she claimed that was “because of

the post office.”

At the end of the hearing, the district court concluded Lynn was unable to

provide for her own care, safety, well-being, or to manage her financial decisions

without the assistance of a guardian and a conservator. The court found Eric

suitable and qualified to continue to serve in those roles. The court wrote:

That upon review of the medical exhibits, [Lynn] is currently under a
mental health commitment and displays schizophrenia and
delusional behavior. She has been the victim of scammers and
lacks . . . insight into the nature of her mental illness and only
accepts treatment if court ordered through a commitment. [Lynn] is
no longer able to live independently and refuses help. She is unable
to function independently and puts her own health and safety at risk.
Her children testified as to the poor decisions she is making and her
hallucinations that she is being poisoned in her own home. [Lynn] in
her testimony denies her need for a guardian and conservator and
denies she is in need of assistance. Without oversight to insure the
medications are taken and assistance with her daily needs, [Lynn] is
at risk of injury to herself and vulnerable for financial exploitation.
[Lynn] lacks the capacity to understand the severity of her mental
condition.

The district court determined a limited guardianship was “not appropriate in

this matter.” Instead, the court appointed Eric as guardian and conservator for
6

Lynn, specified the decisions Eric was able to make for Lynn without further court

approval, and set out the decisions that required application to and approval of the

court.

Lynn appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence she is unable to care

for her personal safety or attend to her needs. Alternatively, she argues the court

did not adequately consider a limited guardianship and conservatorship.

II. Standard of Review

We review the involuntary appointment of a guardian or conservator for

errors of law. Iowa Code § 633.33 (2022). The district court’s findings are binding

on us if supported by substantial evidence. See In re Conservatorship of Leonard,

563 N.W.2d 193, 195 (Iowa 1997). “Evidence is substantial or sufficient when a

reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.” In re

Conservatorship of Deremiah, 477 N.W.2d 691, 693 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991).

“We construe the trial court’s findings broadly and liberally. In case of doubt

or ambiguity we construe the findings to uphold, rather than defeat, the trial court’s

judgment. We are prohibited from weighing the evidence or the credibility of the

witnesses.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

III. Discussion

In a proceeding to appoint a guardian or conservator for an adult, it is the

petitioner’s burden to present “clear and convincing evidence” of “incompetency.”

Iowa Code § 633.551; see also In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)

(noting “clear and convincing evidence” means “there are no serious or substantial

doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.”).
7

Section 633.3(25) defines “incompetent” as meaning

the condition of any person who has been adjudicated by a court to
meet at least one of the following conditions:
(a) To have a decision-making capacity which is so impaired
that the person is unable to care for the person’s personal safety or
to attend to or provide for necessities for the person such as food,
shelter, clothing, or medical care, without which physical injury or
illness may occur.
(b) To have a decision-making capacity which is so impaired
that the person is unable to make, communicate, or carry out
important decisions concerning the person’s financial affairs.
(c) To have a decision-making capacity which is so impaired
that both paragraphs “a” and “b” are applicable to the person.

Lynn argues the evidence does not prove she was incompetent, noting her

diagnoses are not new and she has managed her own affairs to date. But her

psychiatric provider’s letter, along with Eric and Kerstin’s testimony, provides

substantial evidence to the contrary. As does Lynn’s own testimony describing

conspiracies and contact with the CIA. The evidence shows Lynn’s personal

health has been adversely affected by her hygienic activities, she rejected meals

believing they are poisoned, and she refused to let anyone she doesn’t know into

her home (and sometimes those she does know). Lynn’s refusal to take prescribed

medications is also affecting her mental health and risking her safety. Her own

testimony also shows she was unable to manage her financial affairs and did not

know how to receive her mail or access her phone.

Lynn asserts the court did not adequately consider a limited conservatorship

or guardianship. She maintains: “The court did not consider the capabilities of

Lynn and the availability of third-party assistance.” Lynn’s own testimony indicates

third-party assistance was not a viable option. She refused voluntary assistance

from her own children and did not trust people she didn’t know. Without a guardian,
8

Lynn will refuse necessary medical treatment and medication, which is necessary

to keep her safe. Lynn’s delusions were interfering with her activities of daily living

and negatively impacting her ability to manage her financial affairs. Without a

conservator, her financial affairs have gone unmanaged. The district court did not

err in concluding a limited guardianship and conservatorship were inappropriate.

IV. Disposition

Because substantial evidence supports the district court’s findings of

incapacity and the court did not err in finding a limited guardianship or

conservatorship would be inadequate, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.