Citation Nr: A25023402
Decision Date: 03/13/25	Archive Date: 03/13/25

DOCKET NO. 231219-402135
DATE: March 13, 2025

ORDER

The appeal as to the appointment of J.O. as fiduciary is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In a September 2023 rating decision, the Veteran was found not competent to handle the disbursement of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funds.

2. In November 2023, VA appointed Valley Payee Service as fiduciary.

3. In a December 2023 VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran challenged the assignment of Valley Payee and sought appointment of his spouse as fiduciary.

4. In March 2024, VA appointed the Veteran's spouse as fiduciary.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for dismissal of the appeal have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1977 to July 1983.

In the December 2023 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

1. The appeal as to the appointment of J.O. as Fiduciary 

In a September 2023 rating decision, the Regional Office found that the Veteran was not competent to handle the disbursement of his VA funds.  He has not challenged the incompetency finding.  As a result of that decision, the Veteran was assigned a fiduciary, Valley Payee Service, in November 2023. 

The Veteran appealed that determination and wrote that he wanted his spouse to have control of his money.

(Continued on the next page)

?

In March 2024, VA appointed J.O., the Veteran's spouse as his fiduciary.  This represents a total grant of the relief sought.  

Although this decision was issued after the decision on appeal, the Board may consider it, as it is not new evidence, but rather, a new legal finding.  Thus, there remains no matter in controversy as to this matter, as the relief sought has been granted.  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a), 7105(d)(5).

 

 

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Nelson, L.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.