In the matter of Lillian Lees
Annotate this CaseThis opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
In the matter of Lillian Lees,
an incapacitated adult.
Linda L. Nelson,
Petitioner,
v.
The Honorable Tyrone E.
Medley, Third District
Court Judge,
Respondent.
The Division of Aging
and Adult Services, Utah
Department of Human Services,
Real Party in Interest.
No. 970307
F I L E D
July 16, 1997
Third District, Salt Lake Div. I
The Honorable Tyrone Medley
Attorneys: Michael A. Jensen, Salt Lake City, for Nelson
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Judge
Medley
Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., J. Stephen Mikita, Asst.
Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for Department of
Human Services
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Linda Nelson is the daughter of Lillian Lees, an incapacitated adult. Judge Glenn
Iwasaki issued an emergency order at the behest of the Division of Aging and Adult Services
under which Ms. Lees was forcibly removed from the Nelson home and placed in a health care
center.
The Division of Aging and Adult Services alleged in general terms in the documents presented to
Judge Iwasaki that this was an emergency situation justifying immediate removal of Ms. Lees
from the Nelson residence. The Division sought an order authorizing forcible entry under section
62A-3-306 into the Nelson premises by law enforcement officers. The Division did not give
Ms. Nelson, Ms. Lees, or anyone else at least 24 hours of advance notice before the hearing on
the petition, as required by section 62A-3-307 of the Code. The Division's petition did not
include a request that the trial court waive the 24-hour advance notice requirement contained in
section 62A-3-307, nor did the court's order contain an explicit finding that the court was
waiving this 24-hour notice requirement upon a showing that the statutory conditions contained
in section 62A-3-307(2)(a) and (b) had been met. After the order's issuance, the Division
immediately executed the order with the assistance of law enforcement personnel and removed
Ms. Lees from the Nelson house and put her in a nursing care facility.
Following execution of the order, Ms. Nelson requested the district court, Judge Tyrone Medley
presiding, to set aside the emergency order on several grounds and to order Ms. Lees returned.
For purposes of the present proceeding, the pertinent ground is that the 24-hour notice required
was not given and Judge Iwasaki's emergency order did not explicitly waive the 24-hour notice
requirement, thereby making the emergency order invalid. Judge Medley held a hearing and
concluded that while the order "did not explicitly waive the 24-hour notice requirement . . . , such
a waiver is reasonably inferred and supported by the circumstances of this case." In the interim,
the Division has filed a petition to establish a guardianship over Ms. Lees. The trial on that
matter has been set for August 1, 1997.
Mr. Nelson sought an extraordinary writ from this court, which we treat as one in the nature of
habeas corpus. The only contention raised before us is that there are insufficient grounds in the
record to justify Judge Medley's conclusion that one can reasonably infer from the record before
Judge Iwasaki that he granted a waiver of the 24-hour notice requirement of section 62A-3-307(2). We find merit in Ms. Nelson's contention.
Section 62A-3-307 provides that notice of a petition for an emergency order, along with
supporting facts,
shall be given to the person to be protected, and to his spouse, if he is married, or to his adult
children or his next of kin, and to his guardian if one has been appointed. This notice shall be
given at least 24 hours prior to a hearing for emergency intervention.
Under the facts of the present case, Ms. Nelson was entitled to this notice. Section 62A-3-307(2)
permits the trial court to waive this notice requirement upon a specific showing that
(a) immediate and reasonably foreseeable physical harm to the person or others will result from a
24 hour delay; and (b) reasonable attempts have been made to notify the person, his spouse, if he
is married, his adult children or next of kin, and his guardian, if one has been appointed.
This provision contains very explicit requirements of proof that must be met before a trial court
may order a waiver of the 24-hour notice. In addition, because of the significant liberty interests
at stake, we conclude that before granting such a waiver, the trial court should set forth clearly in
its order that it has considered these requirements and has found on the record evidence that the
requirements of section 62A-3-307(2)(a) and (b) have been met. In the present case, this was not
done, and there is no basis in the record for inferring that these requirements have been satisfied.
The petition is silent as to the facts that would show any justification for waiver, as is the trial
court's order. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the emergency order without first
giving notice and holding a hearing violated the statute. Consequently, the resulting removal of
Ms. Lees from the Nelson residence and her placement in a care facility was unlawful.
We are mindful that in these unique circumstances, moving Ms. Lees, a seriously ill and mentally
impaired older person, from her present situation back to the Nelson home could be
unnecessarily disruptive and potentially harmful to her health. A trial is to be held on August 1st
to determine whether the State should assume guardianship over Ms. Lees, with the potential for
a further move for Ms. Lees. Accordingly, while this court orders the release of Ms. Lees and her
return to the Nelson household, we stay the order for 72 hours. Within that period, the Division
may file another petition for an emergency order that meets the requirements of the statute. The
24-hour notice required by section 62A-3-307 shall be provided. The trial court with which the
petition is filed should then hold a hearing as contemplated by the statute to determine whether,
after Ms. Nelson has had an opportunity to respond to the allegations of the petition, there are
sufficient grounds to warrant that Ms. Lees' removal from the Nelson home was warranted by
section 62A-3-306 and that therefore she should remain in her present situation. In the event that
no such petition is filed within 72 hours, Ms. Lees is ordered returned to the Nelson home.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.