GONZALEZ v. MAJOR HOSPITAL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Carlos J. Gonzalez, pro se, appeals the Shelby Circuit Court's interlocutory order appointing a temporary guardian over the Estate of Sharon Osburn (“the Estate”), Gonzalez's mother-in-law. However, we do not reach Gonzalez's arguments on the merits both because this interlocutory appeal is not properly before us and because, even if it were, the order challenged on appeal is moot.

[2] Therefore we dismiss this appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In February 2025, Major Hospital d/b/a Willows of Shelbyville (“Major”) filed a verified petition for the appointment of a guardian over the Estate. During a hearing in March, Osburn testified that she needed a guardian because Gonzalez had been stealing money from her. Osburn also testified that she needed help with managing her financial affairs. Osburn testified that she agreed that Stacy McGuyre should be appointed as guardian of the Estate. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court appointed McGuyre as the Estate's temporary guardian.

[4] In April, Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal from the order appointing the temporary guardian on the theory that such an appeal was authorized as a matter of right under Indiana Appellate Rules 14(A) or 14(D). In May, the trial court issued an order appointing McGuyre as the Estate's permanent guardian, superseding the temporary order.

Discussion and Decision

[5] In his notice of appeal, Gonzalez alleged that the trial court's order appointing a temporary guardian over the Estate is appealable as a matter of right under Indiana Appellate Rules 14(A) or 14(D). But nothing in Appellate Rule 14(A) applies to guardianships, and Gonzalez does not cite a statutory basis for this appeal under Appellate Rule 14(D). Indeed, Gonzalez makes no argument in his brief on appeal in support of his contention that this is an appeal as a matter of right.

[6] Rather, this is a discretionary appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). As our Supreme Court has explained, “[a] discretionary interlocutory appeal is proper so long as the party timely and successfully moves (1) the trial court to certify the order and (2) the Court of Appeals to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.” Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Finnerty, 191 N.E.3d 211, 218 (Ind. 2022). Those requirements were not met here, and this appeal is not properly before us.

[7] Moreover, Gonzalez appeals the trial court's appointment of a temporary guardian despite the fact that the trial court appointed a permanent guardian in May. Accordingly, the order as to a temporary guardian has been superseded and Gonzalez's appeal of that order is moot. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991) (noting the long-standing rule that “a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court”).

[8] Dismissed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.