In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Mary Zabel

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1202
Filed May 21, 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF
MARY ZABEL,

JACQUELINE OBERHELMAN,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe,

Judge.

Following competing petitions requesting to be named their mother’s

guardian and conservator, the daughter who was not named guardian appeals.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

Cameron M. Sprecher of O’Mara & Sprecher, Mason City, for appellant

Jacqueline Oberhelman.

David R. Johnson of The Johnson Law Firm, PLC, Eagle Grove, for

appellee Shelly Zabel.

Brian L. Yung of Cochrane & Cochrane P.L.C., Fort Dodge, for appellee

Mary S. Zabel.

Colin Hendricks, Fort Dodge, for conservator Green State Credit Union.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield,

S.J.* Ahlers, J., takes no part.

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

(2025).
2

POTTERFIELD, Senior Judge.

Sisters Shelly Zabel and Jacqueline Oberhelman (Jackie) filed competing

petitions to be named guardian and conservator of their mother, Mary Zabel, who

has advanced dementia. Following a four-day trial, the district court selected

Shelly to be guardian and Green State Credit Union to be the conservator; it

suspended a 2012 durable medical power of attorney giving Jackie certain powers.

Jackie appeals, challenging the court’s guardianship decision and the suspension

of the power of attorney.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Shelly and Jackie filed competing petitions for the appointment of a

guardian and conservator for Mary in May 2022. Each daughter proposed herself

as guardian and conservator, and the district court consolidated the two cases. It

was undisputed Mary was in need of assistance. A physician’s report—completed

by Mary’s primary care provider—opined that she suffered from dementia without

behavioral disturbance and was “substantially unable to care for [her] own financial

affairs.”

The attorney appointed for Mary asked for an emergency hearing to appoint

a temporary guardian and conservator. The attorney stated that after personally

interviewing Mary, it was clear that her “wishes [were] not reasonably ascertainable

due to her medical condition” and that appointment of a temporary guardian and

conservator were necessary. The court visitor and all parties were in agreement

that an institutional conservator should be appointed temporarily. But they were

unable to reach an agreement as to who should be the temporary guardian. And,

while Mary’s attorney recommended that she be moved into a residential care
3

facility, the sisters could not agree—Shelly thought Mary should be moved into a

facility, while Jackie resisted it.

Before the emergency hearing took place, all parties agreed that Green

State Credit Union would be appointed temporary conservator for Mary and Jackie

would be appointed the temporary guardian. Mary was to be placed in a residential

care facility that provided dementia care and could meet her needs. The court

approved the settlement and ordered that Jackie had “no authority to place any

restrictions on family members as [Mary’s] visitors.”

A four-day trial to the bench took place between March 7 and May 25, 2023.

At trial, the parties introduced into evidence a 2012 durable power of attorney for

health care decisions, in which Mary designated her now-deceased husband,

Wayne, to make her health care decisions if she was unable and Jackie as

Wayne’s successor. There was no evidence at trial that Mary lacked competency

in 2012.

The rest of the four days of trial focused on Mary’s health in April 2022 and

what happened after Mary’s three daughters split into two camps—with Jackie in

one and Shelly and their sister Barbara in the other. As the district court found1:

Mary’s mental status deteriorated after Wayne’s death [in
2016]. The witnesses described Mary as struggling with the grief of
the loss, but it became obvious by 2022 (and probably as early as
2019) that Mary’s mental capacity was deteriorating. Mary continued
to live in her home, but her daughters visited her daily, making sure
that she took her medications, attended her medical appointments,
and had food.
Mary’s situation had change[d] dramatically by April 27, 2022.
Jackie and her ex-husband, Lyle Oberhelman (Lyle) took Mary to see
their attorney, Jerry L. Schnurr, III, for the purpose of executing an
Iowa Statutory Power of Attorney appointing Jackie as the agent.

1 Substantial evidence in the record supports these fact findings.
4

Schnurr testified that he was satisfied with Mary’s competence after
meeting with her. Schnurr prepared the power of attorney[,] which
appointed Jackie[,] and Mary signed it.
This was not the only significant event in Mary’s life on April
27th.
Also on April 27th, Shelly took Mary to Green State Credit
Union where Mary designated Shelly as the sole death beneficiary
of her checking account. Shelly testified that most of the discussion
with the Green State employee was with Shelly.
Mary was obviously struggling on April 27th. Jackie and
Shelly both arranged separately for Mary to obtain medical treatment
that day. The evidence depicts Mary’s declining physical and mental
health. In years previous, Mary had survived bouts with cancer and
other physical challenges. These health events diminished Mary
physically. The girls were devoting more time to her care and food
preparation as each day passed.
On May 23rd, Schnurr drafted a Combined Petition for
Appointment of Guardian and Conservator for Adult concerning
Mary’s at Jackie’s request. The Petition alleged:
The Respondent’s decision-making capacity is
so impaired that the Respondent is unable to make,
communicate or carry out important decisions
regarding the Respondent’s financial affairs, and the
Respondent is unable to care for her own safety or to
provide for necessities such as food, shelter, clothing
or medical care without which physical injury or illness
may occur. The appointment of a Guardian and
Conservator is in the Respondent’s best interest. The
Respondent has been diagnosed with dementia
without behavioral disturbance.
....
The Respondent has been diagnosed with
dementia without behavioral disturbance. Cognitive
testing by her physician indicates dementia range,
without improvement in the future. She is able to do
some activities of daily living with assistance but needs
help with cognitive decision making . . . .
The April 27th to May 23rd period is also important because
of the alignment of the daughters into opposing camps and their
treatment of Mary. The three cared about Mary deeply and were
engaged in her care as each daughter determined . . . Mary’s best
interests. However, these care plans conflicted and there was
vehement disagreement about Mary’s best interests.
Shelly and Barbara worked together. They increasingly
provided 24-hour care. Initially, one would stay at Mary’s home
overnight. Eventually, Mary stayed in their homes. Jackie visited
5

and communicated with Mary frequently and monitored her
medications.
Various factors militarized this tense situation. One of the
primary reasons was animosity between Jackie’s ex-husband, Lyle,
and Shelly/Barbara.
It would be an understatement to say that there was great
friction between Shelly/Barbara and Lyle. Lyle has a record of nine
civil and criminal domestic abuse adjudications and violations of no-
contact orders, harassment, and criminal mischief against Jackie
between 2005 and 2012. Jackie and Lyle divorced. Lyle has
numerous outstanding judgments.
On May 23, 2017, Mary purchased a home for Jackie at
[address in] Fort Dodge (D Street). Mary has kept this home in her
name and Jackie has lived there until she reunited with Lyle and
moved into the home which he occupies. D Street has been vacant
for some time.
There have been numerous confrontations between
Shelly/Barbara and Lyle. Shelly/Barbara are concerned for Jackie’s
safety. They believe that Lyle manipulates Jackie and Mary, as
demonstrated by numerous payments to him and on his behalf.
During April-May, 2022, Barbara and Shelly were Mary’s
primary caretakers. Jackie has accused them of restricting her
access to Mary. Barbara and Shelly deny this and point to emails,
telephone calls, and personal visits between Jackie and Barbara,
Shelly and Mary. Mary expressed fear of Lyle to Barbara and Shelly.
May 21st proved to be another watershed day for Mary.
Jackie requested to take Mary. Mary objected to Shelly and Barbara,
but ultimately agreed to go in order to protect Shelly and Barbara
from Lyle’s wrath[.] Lyle and Jackie took Mary. Jackie refused to tell
Shelly or Barbara where they were taking Mary or when she would
be back. Ultimately, Lyle and Jackie took Mary to their home and
ceased all communications with Shelly and Barbara.
....
Jackie refused to allow any contact between Mary and
Shelly/Barbara after May 21st. Jackie and Lyle kept Mary in their
home. On June 17th, Mary wrote Check 5373 to Jackie in the
amount of $2,221.00 for the delinquent property taxes on the home
which Lyle occupies and there was a “disbursement” from her
account of $5,000.00.
Shelly and Barbara made repeated requests to visit with Mary
which were unanswered. Jackie requested the assistance of the Fort
Dodge Police Department in response to these requests. Officer
Matthew Meyer spoke with Lyle, Jackie, and Mary. He testified that
Lyle was assertive and aggressive. He described Jackie as
reasonable and Mary as “okay” but “disheveled.” Meyer heard the
allegations of harassment and contacted Shelly. He described
Shelly as receptive when he warned her that she should stop all
6

attempts at contact or she could be charged with harassment. Shelly
and Barbara stopped their attempted communications.
Attorney Schnurr emailed Shelly’s attorney on June 14,
setting forth the terms for a personal visit between Shelly/Barbara
and Mary.
Dave,
This is a follow-up to our recent telephone
conversation. As we discussed, one of the issues
raised by your clients relates to the validity of the power
of attorney I prepared and notarized for Mary. I will
likely be a witness. Therefore, I think it would be best
if I withdrew as attorney. I have visited with Brandy
Lundy and I believe she will be able to represent Jackie
going forward. Assuming this works, we will have
Brandy file an appearance soon, and I will file a Motion
to Withdraw. I have a call in to Brian Yung for him to
contact Jackie and set up a time to visit Mary as Mary’s
attorney.
I have visited with Jackie. We can have Shelly
and Barbara see Mary tomorrow, June 15 at 7:30 p.m.
Only Shelly and Barbara are permitted to come. This
will take place at Jackie’s home. There will be no
recording of any part of the visit. Lyle will not be in the
house. Their son, Matt, will be present. The visitation
will end no later than 9:00 p.m.
Matthew Oberhelman (Matt), who is Jackie’s son, testified that
he consented to supervise the visit. The visit began as planned, but
within short order, Matt objected to some of the questions which
Shelly and Barbara asked. This led to an argument and a premature
termination of the visit.
[Mary’s attorney’s] Application for an Emergency Hearing
Regarding Appointment of Temporary Conservator and Guardian
was scheduled for June 25th. The parties agreed to the appointment
of a temporary conservator and a temporary guardian as well as
Mary’s placement. . . .
....
Eventually, Jackie placed Mary at Friendship Haven. This has
been an extremely beneficial placement for Mary. Her physical
health has improved dramatically. She has adapted well to the
facility. Family members visit frequently. Shelly and Barbara are
concerned that Lyle also visits and they suspect that he visits Mary
alone. The three girls and Lyle take Mary out for lunch and short
home visits.
7

The district court appointed Shelly as guardian rather than Jackie; the court

concluded the 2022 power of attorney (which nominated Jackie if Mary was in need

of a guardian) was invalid because Mary lacked the capacity to enter into a contract

on April 27, 2022. And it found that Jackie’s action of keeping Mary away from

Shelly and Barbara was not in Mary’s best interests and “was baseless and

punitive,” while “Shelly showed a willingness and ability to set aside her

unhappiness and facilitate visits between Mary and Jackie.” The court suggested

Shelly’s and Barbara’s concerns about Lyle’s interactions with their vulnerable

mother were not unwarranted, noting:

Lyle’s conduct in the trial was alarming. He refused to comply
with a subpoena on the first day. The court issued a warrant for his
arrest. He appeared voluntarily on the second day, but his testimony
was often evasive, confrontational[,] and unconvincing. He has been
the recipient of transfers of large amounts of money from Mary. His
explanations for the payments were flippant and, to a great degree,
raise concerns about his ability to manipulate Jackie and Mary.

Over Shelly’s resistance, the court appointed Green State Credit Union as

permanent conservators for Mary (this ruling is not being challenged on appeal).

Finally, the court concluded the 2012 durable medical power of attorney was valid

but suspended it because it overlapped with the duties of the guardian and “will

lead to direct conflict with the guardian as demonstrated by recent and long-term

family history.”

Jackie appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

Actions for the involuntary appointment of guardians and conservators are

tried at law. See Iowa Code § 633.33 (2022). Thus, we review for the correction

of legal error. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. That means we are bound by the
8

findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(a).

Substantial evidence exists if we may reasonably infer the finding from the record.

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

“As for the selection of a guardian, the district court has discretion to decide

who might best serve in that fiduciary capacity.” In re Guardianship of Turner,

No. 18-1361, 2019 WL 3945973, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re

Guardianship & Conservatorship of Reed, 468 N.W.2d 819, 822–23 (Iowa 1991)).

“We will not interfere in that selection unless the challenger shows a clear abuse

of discretion in making the appointment.” Id. (citing Arent v. Arent, 32 N.W.2d 660,

661 (Iowa 1948)).

III. Discussion.

A. Guardianship.

Pursuant to Iowa Code section 633B.108(1):

Under a power of attorney, a principal may nominate a
conservator of the principal’s estate or guardian of the principal’s
person for consideration by the court if proceedings for the principal’s
estate or person are begun after the principal executes the power of
attorney. Except for good cause shown or disqualification, the court
shall make its appointment in accordance with the principal's most
recent nomination.

Here, Mary signed a durable power of attorney on April 27, 2022, which nominated

Jackie to be appointed her guardian if it became necessary. The power of attorney

was signed about a month before either sister filed their petition to be named

Mary’s guardian and conservator. Yet the district court appointed Shelly instead

of Jackie after it concluded the 2022 power of attorney was invalid due to “clear

and convincing evidence that Mary lacked the capacity to enter into a contract on

April 27th, 2022” and that there was good cause to appoint Shelly due to “Jackie’s
9

isolation of Mary between May and June, [2022] and Lyle/Jackie’s manipulation of

Mary.”

Jackie challenges the district court’s appointment of Shelly as guardian of

their mother. She contests the district court’s determination that the 2022 power

of attorney was invalid because of Mary’s lack of competency when she signed it.

See In re Est. of Faris, 159 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa 1968) (“It is essential to the

validity of a contract that the parties thereto possess not only the legal status

affording capacity to contract, . . . but also the mental competence affording

capacity to consent.” (citation omitted)).

Attorney Jerry Schnurr—who was Jackie’s attorney at the time the power of

attorney was signed—testified that he “had a nice conversation with” Mary for

approximately forty-five minutes before she signed the power of attorney on April

27, 2022, and he believed she was mentally competent to do so. This is unlike the

attorney in Turner, who knew the principal “over several years of legal

representation” before she signed the power of attorney and who was aware of the

principal’s cognitive decline and took purposeful steps to ensure she showed no

signs of incapacity at the time she signed. See 2019 WL 3945973, at *3–4. And,

like the district court, we question the reliability of Attorney Schnurr’s opinion

since—less than one month later—he helped Jackie prepare the petition for

involuntary guardianship of Mary, which stated Mary’s “decision-making capacity

[was] so impaired that [she] is unable to make, communicate or carry out important

decisions,” that she had “been diagnosed with dementia,” and that she was “able

to do some activities of daily living with assistance but needs help with cognitive

decision making.”
10

The evidence from trial did not establish that Mary was competent in late

April and then, after a quick decline, became incompetent in late May (when it was

undisputed that Mary’s decision-making capacity was so impaired to need a

guardian and conservator). Rather, the evidence was that Mary had needed her

daughters’ help to pay her bills, to set up and attend medical appointments, to take

her medications as prescribed, and more for a period of time leading up to April

2022, when the daughters became at loggerheads and each began taking steps

to ensure their control over Mary’s future. According to Shelly’s petition for

guardianship in May 2022, Mary “ha[d] been suffering from the early onset of

dementia for the past two years or more” by that point.

Substantial evidence supports the district court’s determination that Mary

lacked competency when she signed the power of attorney in 2022, making it

invalid. And without the 2022 power of attorney being valid, there was no reason

to start with the presumption that Jackie should be appointed guardian. Cf. Iowa

Code § 633B.108(1) (“Except for good cause shown or disqualification, the court

shall make its appointment in accordance with the principal’s most recent

nomination.”).

Instead, when deciding whether Jackie or Shelly should be Mary’s guardian,

the sisters started on equal footing. See Turner, 2019 WL 3945973, at *4 (“If two

or more statutorily qualified and suitable persons are seeking guardianship of an

adult ward, the district court must exercise its discretion to determine which

proposed guardian’s appointment would best serve the interests and well-being of

the ward.”). The district court determined Shelly was the better choice for

guardian, relying on the fact that after Jackie took their mother from Barb’s home
11

(ostensibly for a haircut), she absconded with Mary to her own home and refused

to allow Barbara and Shelly to have contact with Mary. Jackie cut off access even

though Mary was used to daily contact with her daughters. And when the sisters

continued to reach out, asking for a chance to see their mother, Jackie called the

police and reported Shelly and Barbara were harassing her. Even at trial Jackie

expressed doubt that she could ever come to agreement with her sisters

concerning issues involving Mary without attorneys or court oversight.

Additionally, after Jackie filed a petition to become Mary’s guardian and

conservator—when she said under penalty of perjury that Mary was unable to

make cognitive decisions—Jackie took Mary to the bank and withdrew $5000 in

cash for Jackie. On the same day, Mary also wrote a check to Jackie for $2221,

with Jackie using the funds to pay the taxes on the home Lyle owns. Shelly was

not without her own errors in judgment—she testified she believed Mary was

incompetent to sign the power of attorney on April 27, 2022, but urged that Mary

had the capacity to sign documents that gave Shelly joint ownership with rights of

survivorship over Mary’s checking and savings accounts later that same day. Yet

there was no evidence Shelly used this power to enrich herself.

The court visitor2 and Mary’s attorney, who each participated in the trial,

opined that Shelly should be appointed guardian. The court visitor relied on his

belief “that Shelly Zabel would deal fairly with all family members where [Mary] is

concerned” and that it was Shelly’s intention that [Mary] remain at Friendship

Haven, which is in her best interest.” Mary’s attorney asserted:

2 The district court appointed a court visitor pursuant to Iowa Code section 633.562.
12

The evidence indicates that Shelly has the best ability to deal fairly
with all family members as it relates to the guardianship. Shelly was
an unequivocal advocate for Mary’s placement at Friendship Haven,
where everyone agrees Mary has thrived physically and medically.
Shelly has agreed that Mary should continue to reside at Friendship
Haven, which I agree is in her best interest. Mary is happy, safe and
content at Friendship Haven. Regardless of who is appointed as
guardian, the undersigned requests that the order provide Mary
continue to reside at Friendship Haven absent further order of the
court after a hearing on the issue. As the Court Visitor noted, Shelly
has already spent considerable time and thought into her future
service as guardian and demonstrated she has Mary’s best interest
in mind as it relates to guardianship issues.

For all these reasons, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

appointing Shelly guardian rather than Jackie.

B. Power of Attorney.

Jackie challenges the district court’s decision to suspend the 2012 medical

power of attorney naming Jackie the successor agent for Mary, arguing the court

lacks the authority to suspend the power given to her by Mary while competent

and which Jackie held for nearly a decade without issue.

The district court based its decision on a practical concern—the medical

power of attorney gave Jackie powers that overlapped with the powers Shelly was

given as guardian, and it was likely this would lead to further conflict in the future.

We understand the court’s concern. But it did not cite to a statute or any case law

giving it authority to suspend the medical power of attorney (for this reason or any

other). And we have not found any authority that suggests the court has the power

to do so in these circumstances.

Iowa Code section 633B.108(2) considers the suspension of a power of

attorney when the court appoints a conservator of the principal’s estate or property.

But this provision does not involve the suspension of a medical power of attorney.
13

Cf. Iowa Code § 633B.103 (providing chapter 633B “applies to all powers of

attorney except . . . [a] power to make health care decisions”).

Iowa Code section 144B.8 controls revocation of a durable power attorney

for health care. It allows a durable power attorney for health care to be revoked

“at any time and in any manner by which the principal [i.e. Mary] is able to

communicate the intent to revoke.” It does not provide a mechanism for the court

to outright revoke the power of attorney other than through the procedure

contemplated by section 144B.6. See id. § 144B.8.

Iowa Code section 144B.6 addresses the authority of the district court sitting

in equity to revoke or otherwise invalidate a power of attorney for health care when

“acting in a manner contrary to the wishes of the principal.” Id. § 144B.6(1). But

this section provides an avenue for court action in a specific decision-making event

when the person holding the power of attorney is alleged to be acting against the

wishes of the principal.

The record here raises clear instances of concerning actions by Jackie,

including her delay in arranging for a medical evaluation of Mary, her persistent

inclusion of Lyle in Mary’s care when Mary had expressed her fear of Lyle, and her

opposition to residential care for Mary. But those events were not the subject of a

petition in equity to revoke Jackie’s power of attorney, although they did form part

of the foundation for the court’s decision at law to name Shelley as guardian under

chapter 633B.

As guardian, Shelley has authority regarding health care for Mary, a

situation which does overlap with Jackie’s power of attorney. Yet without an

authority giving the court the explicit power to override Mary’s wishes regarding
14

her medical power of attorney, we agree with Jackie—the court lacked authority to

suspend the 2012 medical power of attorney. We reverse this ruling.

IV. Conclusion.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Shelly guardian

rather than Jackie; we affirm that decision. But the court lacked authority to

suspend Mary’s 2012 medical power of attorney naming Jackie as her agent in this

circumstance, so we reverse that decision.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.