## Facts

- Inez B. Way, in her seventies, was bedridden and lived with Al Soper, an elderly man with significant health and cognitive limitations.
- Reports to the state agency raised concerns about Way’s welfare; an investigation found unsanitary, unsafe living conditions and inadequate care.
- The residence had serious disrepair, nonfunctional plumbing and heat, and a rat infestation; Way was found in poor hygienic condition.
- The Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) petitioned for appointment of a guardian for Way’s person and estate.
- A jury found Way incapacitated as to both person and property.
- The trial court ordered a full guardianship of Way’s property and a limited guardianship of Way’s person, leaving Way specified personal rights (including medical consent, residence choice, voting, and certain social decisions).
- On reconsideration, the court narrowed Way’s authority to choose who would provide care and assistance, but otherwise retained the limited guardianship of the person.
- DSHS appealed seeking a full guardianship of Way’s person and challenging the jury submission method.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by using a special verdict form to submit incapacity and the scope of retained personal rights to the jury.
2. Whether the evidence required, as a matter of law, a full guardianship of Way’s person such that the trial court should have granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s guardianship orders.
- The court held the special verdict form was a permissible method to obtain jury findings on incapacity and which rights could be retained under a limited guardianship.
- The court held JNOV was properly denied because substantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that a limited guardianship of the person was sufficient.
- The court left in place a full guardianship of the estate and a limited guardianship of the person, as modified to restrict Way’s choice of caregiver.

## Legal Principles

- Washington guardianship law permits full or limited guardianships and requires courts to tailor restrictions to the individual’s functional limits.
- Guardianship should reflect the least restrictive arrangement consistent with the individual’s welfare; incapacity may be partial rather than total.
- A jury may decide factual questions concerning incapacity and the extent of rights removed or retained, and a special verdict form may be used to structure those determinations.
- JNOV is appropriate only when, viewing evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, there is no substantial evidence supporting the verdict; appellate review defers to supported fact-finding on capacity and scope.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a guardianship plan that fully protected Way’s financial affairs while preserving selected personal decision-making rights, concluding that the jury’s rights-allocation findings were properly obtained through a special verdict and supported by substantial evidence under the least-restrictive statutory framework.


In re Guardianship of Way, 901 P.2d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)