Tag Archives: conservator

Next in Britney Spears conservatorship? Possibly no changes, or new conservator(s), or the lessening of restrictions, or termination . . . .

Posted on by

If you have been following the news and developments in Britney Spears’ conservatorship case, undoubtedly you have come to realize that the Judge in a conservatorship case, and, indeed, in almost all probate court cases, has significant discretionary decision-making authority within the parameters of the law and the facts of the specific case.

Most logically it would be up to Ms. Spears to file a petition or petitions with the Court if she wants to change anything significant relating to her conservatorship. Other interested persons also can have legal standing to file their own petitions in the case; however, most likely it would be more persuasive with the Court for Ms. Spears to be the person who would file a petition to remove a conservator or to appoint a new conservator or co-conservator, or to lessen the conservatorship limitations or restrictions on Ms. Spears, or possibly to terminate the conservatorship.

Assuming that the conservatorship continues, and for as long as it continues, the Judge does have the authority to appoint, remove and replace a conservator. In Ms. Spears’ case conservators have already been appointed and added, and have resigned.

California Probate Code section 2650 (Causes for Removal) states the reasons for which a conservator may be removed. Again, the Judge has significant discretion. Section 2650 primarily is focused on the conservator’s actions and inactions and whether or not those actions and inactions are in breach of his or her fiduciary duties. Section 2650 also lists as one criteria the risk that the conservator’s actions might in the future be in breach of his or her fiduciary duties.

Interestingly, section 2650 does not specifically list difficulty or inability of the conservatee and the conservator to communicate or the conservatee’s wishes; however, in Ms. Spears’ situation I would argue that her wishes should carry significant importance, and that the communications and ability to communicate or the lack thereof between Ms. Spears and her conservator also should be considered. Also note that in some situations pertaining to a conservatorship, or to a power of attorney, or to a trust administration, consent or informed consent when possible also might have some relevance – in other words, communicating with the conservatee, or with the principal, or with the settlor/trustor to inquire about her or his wishes won’t necessarily control the decision-making, but those communications and the ability to communicate or not might have relevance.

A conservatorship is a court (i.e., State or Government) action that limits the conservatee’s rights. Thus, it is recognized the restrictions upon a conservatee that a Court orders should be the least restrictive under the circumstances. Accordingly, a conservatorship also can be modified to lessen the restrictions that have been ordered on the conservatee.

Below I have pasted California Probate Code sections 1861, 1862, and 1863 which pertain to terminating a conservatorship. Section 1861 states who has legal standing to petition for termination of the conservatorship. Section 1862 provides that the petition must be brought by way of a noticed hearing.

Section 1863 provides additional legal and procedural requirements including that the conservatee can request a trial by jury, and that witnesses may appear or be presented both in support of the conservatorship and in opposition to the continuance of the conservatorship.

Section 1863(b) provides as follows: “(b) If the court determines that the conservatorship is no longer required or that grounds for establishment of a conservatorship of the person or estate, or both, no longer exist, the court shall make this finding and shall enter judgment terminating the conservatorship accordingly.” Thus, in support of termination, it can be argued that the conservatorship is no longer required, and also that the grounds for establishment of the conservatorship no longer exist. Those are two entirely different standards. Depending on the facts of the case, it might be easier to argue to the Court that the grounds for the establishment of the conservatorship no longer exist, or, perhaps, that if the conservatorship petition was just now being brought, under the current facts the conservatorship would not be granted. Both arguments should be made if they can be supported by the current facts.

Section 1863(d) also adds: “(d) Termination of conservatorship does not preclude a new proceeding for appointment of a conservator on the same or other grounds.” Thus, termination of the conservatorship does not mean that a new petition for conservatorship cannot or won’t be brought in the future if it it believed that a conservatorship is again warranted.

The following are California Probate Code sections 1861, 1862 and 1863:

California Probate Code, Conservatorship, Chapter 3, Termination

Probate Code Section 1861

(a) A petition for the termination of the conservatorship may be filed by any of the following:

(1) The conservator.

(2) The conservatee.

(3) The spouse, or domestic partner, or any relative or friend of the conservatee or other interested person.

(b) The petition shall state facts showing that the conservatorship is no longer required.

(Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 893, Sec. 21. Effective January 1, 2002.)

Probate Code Section 1862

Notice of the hearing on the petition shall be given for the period and in the manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.)

Probate Code Section 1863

(a) The court shall hear and determine the matter according to the law and procedure relating to the trial of civil actions, including trial by jury if demanded by the conservatee. The conservator, the conservatee, or the spouse, or domestic partner, or any relative or friend of the conservatee or other interested person may appear and support or oppose the petition.

(b) If the court determines that the conservatorship is no longer required or that grounds for establishment of a conservatorship of the person or estate, or both, no longer exist, the court shall make this finding and shall enter judgment terminating the conservatorship accordingly.

(c) At the hearing, or thereafter on further notice and hearing, the conservator may be discharged and the bond given by the conservator may be exonerated upon the settlement and approval of the conservator’s final account by the court.

(d) Termination of conservatorship does not preclude a new proceeding for appointment of a conservator on the same or other grounds.

(Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 893, Sec. 22. Effective January 1, 2002.)

There are no Westlaw Notes of Decisions for section 1863 – meaning that there appear to be no California cases that discuss section 1863 or how it is or is not to be applied by the Court.

* * * * *

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business and Commercial, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

Conservatorship of the Estate of Brokken – Probate Court could not award attorneys’ fees when a conservator was not appointed – plus Tate comments, and a video about mediating conservatorship disputes and cases

Posted on by

Conservatorship of the Estate of Brokken, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Division Six (March 15, 2021) 2d Civ. No. B303898 (Super. Ct. No. 17PR00194) (Santa Barbara County).

Summary. A petition for the conservatorship of Doris Mae Brokken was filed by her adult children over Doris’ strong objection. It was alleged that Doris suffered from ongoing mental health issues and that her behavior had become increasingly erratic. After two years of litigation and negotiation, the parties settled the matter without the need for a conservatorship. Doris voluntarily agreed to engage in professional mental health services and the petition was dismissed. The petitioners sought to recover their attorney fees as part of the settlement. Doris did not believe they were legally entitled to fees, but to facilitate settlement, she agreed to let the Probate Court decide whether the petitioners are entitled to fees and, if so, the amount of such fees. Petitioners filed a petition requesting the Probate Court to award them attorneys’ fees under Cal. Probate Code §2640.1. Doris opposed the petition. The Court awarded attorneys’ fees. Doris appealed the Court’s decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that petitioners could not petition for an award of attorneys’ fees because no conservator (temporary or permanent) was appointed, and that §2640.1 applied, if at all, only if a conservator is appointed.

I have pasted copies of both Probate Code §§2640.1 and 2640 below.

Takeaway. Brokken is both legally and factually specific. The case does highlight one of the risks that a petitioner takes when filing a petition for conservatorship, i.e., attorneys’ fees incurred. The petitioners would have been able to petition for the recovery of attorneys’ fees if a temporary or permanent conservator was appointed; however, even in that circumstance the Court would have had discretion over the amount of fees to award. An additional difficulty for the petitioners was that Doris would not agree to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement.  

If Doris had agreed to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement, and if a petition for Court approval of the settlement agreement had been filed, would the Court have approved the attorneys’ fees? We don’t know. However, and assuming that the settlement agreement did not specify the fees pursuant to §2640.1, my view is that the Court probably would have approved the settlement because the fees would have been agreed upon in the settlement agreement which is a contract.

If Doris had agreed to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement, but then suit had to be brought to enforce the settlement agreement, would the Court have enforced the payment of attorneys’ fees? Again, we don’t know. However, and assuming that the settlement agreement did not specify the fees pursuant to §2640.1, again my view is that the Court probably would have enforced payment of the fees because the fees would have been agreed upon in the settlement agreement which is a contract.

There are a lot of moving parts in a conservatorship case. You will find other posts about conservatorships in this blog. Here is a link to a copy of a video about mediating conservatorship disputes and cases https://californiaestatetrust.com/2020/08/15/video-you-can-resolve-and-settle-your-convervatorship-dispute-and-case-dave-tate-esq-litigation-disputes-and-mediator-california/

Below I have pasted copies of both Probate Code §§2640.1 and 2640.

California Probate Code §2640.1

(a) If a person has petitioned for the appointment of a particular conservator and another conservator was appointed while the petition was pending, but not before the expiration of 90 days from the issuance of letters, the person who petitioned for the appointment of a conservator but was not appointed and that person’s attorney may petition the court for an order fixing and allowing compensation and reimbursement of costs, provided that the court determines that the petition was filed in the best interests of the conservatee.

(b) Notice of the hearing shall be given for the period and in the manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(c) Upon the hearing, the court shall make an order to allow both of the following:

(1) Any compensation or costs requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the person who petitioned for the appointment of a conservator but was not appointed, for his or her services rendered in connection with and to facilitate the appointment of a conservator, and costs incurred in connection therewith.

(2) Any compensation or costs requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the attorney for that person, for his or her services rendered in connection with and to facilitate the appointment of a conservator, and costs incurred in connection therewith.

Any compensation and costs allowed shall be charged to the estate of the conservatee. If a conservator of the estate is not appointed, but a conservator of the person is appointed, the compensation and costs allowed shall be ordered by the court to be paid from property belonging to the conservatee, whether held outright, in trust, or otherwise.

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature for this section to have retroactive effect.

(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 493, Sec. 28. Effective January 1, 2007.)

California Probate Code §2640

(a) At any time after the filing of the inventory and appraisal, but not before the expiration of 90 days from the issuance of letters or any other period of time as the court for good cause orders, the guardian or conservator of the estate may petition the court for an order fixing and allowing compensation to any one or more of the following:

(1) The guardian or conservator of the estate for services rendered to that time.

(2) The guardian or conservator of the person for services rendered to that time.

(3) The attorney for services rendered to that time by the attorney to the guardian or conservator of the person or estate or both.

(b) Notice of the hearing shall be given for the period and in the manner provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(c) Upon the hearing, the court shall make an order allowing (1) any compensation requested in the petition the court determines is just and reasonable to the guardian or conservator of the estate for services rendered or to the guardian or conservator of the person for services rendered, or to both, and (2) any compensation requested in the petition the court determines is reasonable to the attorney for services rendered to the guardian or conservator of the person or estate or both. The compensation allowed to the guardian or conservator of the person, the guardian or conservator of the estate, and to the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, include compensation for services rendered before the date of the order appointing the guardian or conservator. The compensation allowed shall be charged to the estate. Legal services for which the attorney may be compensated include those services rendered by any paralegal performing legal services under the direction and supervision of an attorney. The petition or application for compensation shall set forth the hours spent and services performed by the paralegal.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the guardian or conservator shall not be compensated from the estate for any costs or fees that the guardian or conservator incurred in unsuccessfully opposing a petition, or other request or action, made by or on behalf of the ward or conservatee, unless the court determines that the opposition was made in good faith, based on the best interests of the ward or conservatee.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the guardian, conservator, or attorney shall not be compensated with any government benefits program moneys unless deemed by the court as necessary to sustain the support and maintenance of the ward or conservatee, but in no event may this exceed the amount permitted by federal laws and regulations.

(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 847, Sec. 6. (SB 303) Effective January 1, 2020.)

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

Comments about Britney Spears’ conservatorship following the February 11 hearing . . .

Posted on by

As you might be aware, it is still very difficult for the public to obtain information about the proceedings in the Spears conservatorship. That fact is unusual as the general rule is that court proceedings are supposed to be, and are required to be open to the public, unless there is very good reason for some, or all, of the proceeding to not be open. Court proceedings are open to the public unless the Court makes a ruling otherwise. But, again, the presumption and legal principle that a court proceeding will be open to the public is very strong.

My understanding, based on what I have been able to read, is that following the February 11, hearing, Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears remain as co-conservators of the estate, apparently with equal shared powers and authority. And that Jodi Montgomery remains as the conservator of the person.

This conservatorship is an ongoing saga. Current primary issues appear to include at least the following:

Will the conservatorship of the estate continue as it is, or be modified, or be terminated?

Will Jamie Spears continue as co-conservator of the estate as it is, or will his powers and authorities be modified, or will his appointment as co-conservator of the estate be terminated?

How will Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears be able to work together as co-conservators of the estate? Will they be able to work together?

How much weight will the Court give to the requests for changes in the conservatorship that are being made by Britney Spears?

Will any of the issues and orders at the trial Court level be taken up on appeal?

And, perhaps, will the conservatorship of the person continue as it is, or be modified, or be terminated?

The following are a few additional observations:

Generally, conservators are required to communicate with the conservatee and to ask her about her wishes on important matters. However, that doesn’t bind the conservator to the conservatee’s wishes. The Court also should take the conservatee’s wishes into consideration.

Less restrictive options to the conservatorship and to the terms of the conservatorship must be taken into consideration by the Court and the parties. A conservatorship is a restriction on the rights of the conservatee.

On some issues the conservatee is entitled to a jury trial. Otherwise, the Judge has very significant authority to decide issues in a conservatorship, but those decisions must be made based on and in accordance with the applicable laws, the various burdens of poof that might apply, the standards of decision making that might apply (e.g., preponderance of the evidence or some higher standard), and the evidence.

Unless the court orders otherwise, if two co-conservators are ordered, the two co-conservators both must “concur” to exercise a power. Cal. Probate Code §2105. Other than whether either or both of the conservatorships of the estate and of the person will continue, or be modified, or be terminated, I would view the interactions between Bessemer Trust and Jamie Spears as probably being the most difficult and pressing issue. News reports indicate or suggest that there are ongoing disagreements over co-conservator scope of authority and possibly co-conservator decision making and ability to agree. Disagreements of those types could prompt the Court to make changes to its co-conservator order. See, e.g., Cal. Probate Code §§2105.5, and Chapter 9 including §2650, in addition to other Probate Code sections.

Best to you. David Tate, Esq.

Conservatee right to live in personal residence, and sale of personal residence – new 2020 law changes – forwarding from Weintraub Tobin

Posted on by

The following is a link to a discussion by attorney Carlena Tapella at Weintraub Tobin about two new conservatee personal residence rights beginning in 2020. https://www.weintraub.com/blogs/theres-no-place-like-home-heightened-evidentiary-standard-for-moving-conservatees-from-their-personal-residence

As discussed by Ms. Tapella, under present law it is presumed that the personal residence of the conservatee is the least restrictive and most appropriate residence where the conservatee should live. But beginning in 2020 that presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, which is a significantly higher standard. Amended Probate Code Section 2352.5 will in part read: “In any hearing to determine if removal of the conservatee from the conservatee’s personal residence is appropriate, that presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.” And the petitioner or conservator also will be required to determine and establish the appropriate level of care, including the most appropriate residence. Amended Section 2352.5 will also in part read that: If the conservatee is living at a location other than the conservatee’s personal residence at the commencement of the proceeding, that determination shall either include a plan to return the conservatee to their personal residence or an explanation of the limitations or restrictions on a return of the conservatee to their personal residence in the foreseeable future.”

In recent years several California Court decisions have significantly increased the rights of conservatees and prospective conservatees, including, for example, the right to a jury trial on at least some of the conservatorship issues. You should also be aware that a conservatee and a prospective conservatee also have the right to oppose the conservatorship and the conditions of the conservatorship, and also the right to be represented by an attorney – and in appropriate circumstances the Court will appoint an attorney to represent the conservatee or prospective conservatee. The Courts have recognized that a conservatorship proceeding is an action in which the person who has filed the petition is requesting the Court (the State or government) to limit or to take away or to restrict some of the prospective conservatee’s constitutional rights and rights to personal freedom and freedom of choice and decision making. You will see in some of my prior blog posts discussions about certain aspects of conservatorships.

At the link above Ms. Tapella also discusses 2020 changes that put restrictions on the sale of the conservatee’s residence. Amended Probate Code Section 2540 will in part read: “In seeking authorization to sell a conservatee’s present or former personal residence, the conservator shall notify the court that the present or former personal residence is proposed to be sold and that the conservator has discussed the proposed sale with the conservatee . . . . and whether the conservatee supports or is opposed to the proposed sale and shall describe the circumstances that necessitate the proposed sale, including whether the conservatee has the ability to live in the personal residence and why other alternatives, including, but not limited to, in-home care services, are not available. The court, in its discretion, may require the court investigator to discuss the proposed sale with the conservatee.”

The law of conservatorships, and conservatorship proceedings and administrations, including the responsibilities and rights of conservatees and conservators, continue to become more specialized and complicated, and conservatee rights continue to increase and be recognized by the California Legislature and by the Courts.

—————————————————————

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only.

I am also the Chair of the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com; Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Probate Court Disputes and Litigation

  • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business and Business-Related Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; and Nonprofit Entities

  • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets
  • M&A disputes
  • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes
  • Buy-sell disputes
  • Funding and share dilution disputes
  • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations and Governance

  • Corporate and business internal investigations
  • Board, audit committee and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.

The following are copies of the tables of contents of three of the more formal materials that I have written over the years about accounting/auditing, audit committees, and related legal topics – Accounting and Its Legal Implications was my first formal effort, which resulted in a published book that had more of an accounting and auditing focus; Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, for the California Continuing Education of the Bar has a more legal focus; and the most recent Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (February 2017) also has a more legal focus:

Accounting and Its Legal Implications

Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, CEB Advising and Defending Corporate Directors and Officers

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide

The following are other summary materials that you might find useful:

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Success, Diligence, and Defense - David Tate, Esq, 05052018

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

What Is A California Conservatorship – An Overview

Posted on by

I was initially going to make this discussion as a video, and I still might; however, the video obviously takes more time. Below is the discussion about California conservatorships – specifically, what is a California conservatorship, an overview.

First – a reminder and an obligatory disclaimer – this discussion is only a summary of a complicated topic. You need to consult with an attorney about your situation. You cannot rely on this discussion for your situation. And this is not a solicitation for services inside or outside of California, I only represent clients in California, I don’t know anything about your situation or case, and you have not hired me for your situation or case.

Now, that having been said, the following is an overview discussion about California conservatorships.

A conservatorship is a court proceeding where the court legally appoints someone to make and manage personal, medical, daily living, residential placement, or financial matters and decisions for another person.

The person whose rights are being taken away or limited is called the conservatee. The person who is being appointed to manage matters and make decisions for the conservatee is called the conservator.

A conservatorship is a serious legal proceeding because the court, which is a state governmental entity, is being petitioned to take away or limit some of the prospective conservatee’s freedoms and personal and constitutional rights.

The conservatee has the right to fight or oppose the conservatorship, who might be appointed, and the powers of the conservator. And a prospective conservatee has the right to a jury trial.

You might ask, when is a conservatorship needed? Typically a conservatorship might be needed when a person can no longer make and manage the personal, medical or financial matters and decisions for herself or himself, and she or he hasn’t legally appointed someone else to handle those matters and decisions.

So, for example, a conservatorship might be needed if there are no, or insufficient, power of attorney and trust documents, and the person no longer has the mental capacity to execute those documents or refuses to do so.

On the other hand, a conservatorship should not be granted if there is a less restrictive way to provide the help or assistance that is needed, and if the court grants the petition for conservatorship, the court can order only the least restrictive terms, conditions and limitations that are necessary under the circumstances.

The person who is petitioning for conservatorship has the burden of producing sufficient admissible evidence to establish that the court should grant the conservatorship. Conservatorship proceedings can be very contentious.

If a conservatorship is granted, the case remains with the court for future review of the actions taken or not taken by the conservator, accountings if the conservatorship is of the estate, and whether the conservatorship is still needed.

Often a conservator is required to make very important and serious decisions. The conservatee and other people can oppose or object to what the conservator is going to do or has done. Sometimes the case will go back to court for the court to make decisions or orders.

The conservator needs to be represented by an attorney. The conservatee will be represented by an attorney if the conservatee requests one. And in conservatorship disputes it is common for other family members or friends to also be represented by legal counsel.

Recent California conservatorship court decisions have dealt with conservatee’s rights including the right to a jury trial, and in a very recent case the appellate court overruled the trial court, holding that the conservatorship should not have been granted because a friend had instead offered to provide the help and assistance that the prospective conservatee needed.

I have already explained that a prospective conservatee has the right to oppose the conservatorship, and to a jury trial.

You should also be aware that if the conservatorship is granted, the conservatee might also continue to disagree with decisions and actions that are being made or taken.

And I have also seen situations where the preexisting relationship between the conservatee and the conservator was forever damaged, and situations where the prospective conservatee, or the actual conservatee if the conservatorship was granted, then sought to disinherit the person who petitioned for conservatorship or who was appointed by the court to serving as the conservator.

There are many provisions in the California Probate Code that discuss conservatorship proceedings and duties and rights. There are too many provisions to cover in these materials. However, generally you can look at Probate Code sections 1400 through 3212. Other Probate Code sections are also applicable.

In addition to the conservatee’s rights, I also find particularly interesting and important the provisions that relate to conservator duties and decision making, including how the conservator should go about making decisions and what to consider, possibly including the wishes of the conservatee.

You can find additional information on my blogs at http://californiaestatetrust.com and http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, and you can call me at (415) 917-4030. That’s all for now. Thanks for reading.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California

Attorney in Fact and Power of Attorney Decision Making

Posted on by

Surprisingly, there is very little statutory or case law discussing:

-Attorney in fact decision making under a power of attorney document;

-When the power of attorney becomes effective;

-If the principal is making the decisions;

-When is the named attorney in fact actually acting as an attorney in fact under the power of attorney;

-Is the attorney in fact a fiduciary, and if he or she is actually acting as a fiduciary, for what is he or she a fiduciary;

-Can someone be acting as a fiduciary in some situations or with respect to some issues and decisions, but at the same time not for other situations, issues and decisions (and related, the principal doesn’t necessarily lose decision making over all situations, issues and decisions, right?); and

-The specifics of whether acting as a fiduciary in a particular situation does or does not switch the burden of proof, and if it does, in what manner, to what extent, and for what events or actions is the burden of proof switched?

These are all important issues, and they are becoming more important. Cases that deal with powers of attorney or even these issues usually don’t go into detail, but many times simply find in a conclusory fashion that someone was a fiduciary so for all purposes and for all events or actions the burden of proof is shifted, and all depending on the judgment of the trier of fact which is often a single judge. I submit that this approach is way to simplistic, conclusory and lacking in critical legal analysis.

The California Probate Code provides that agency law applies to power of attorney, attorney in fact, and principal issues, unless the Probate Code contains a provision that states otherwise or that directly addresses the issue at hand. I very seldom hear discussions in court about statutes that address powers of attorney, or actions and responsibilities and decision making thereunder. The following are a couple of those statutes.

California Probate Code Section 4234 – (a) To the extent reasonably practicable under the circumstances, an attorney-in-fact has a duty to keep in regular contact with the principal, to communicate with the principal, and to follow the instructions of the principal.

California Probate Code Section 4657 – A patient is presumed to have the capacity to make a health care decision, to give or revoke an advance health care directive, and to designate or disqualify a surrogate. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof.

California Probate Code Section 4684 – An agent shall make a health care decision in accordance with the principal’s individual health care instructions, if any, and other wishes to the extent known to the agent. Otherwise, the agent shall make the decision in accordance with the agent’s determination of the principal’s best interest. In determining the principal’s best interest, the agent shall consider the principal’s personal values to the extent known to the agent.

As you can see, the attorney in fact, assuming that he or she is in fact acting under the power of attorney and as an attorney in fact for the specific situation, issue or action at hand, should be communicating with the principal about important issues and the principal’s wishes and decisions with respect to those issues. And there is or might be an actual or implied presumption that the principal has decision making capacity and is making the decision in that circumstance.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California, http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

Is Your Trust, Estate, Power Of Attorney, Conservatorship, Or Care Situation Contentious?

Posted on by

Are there disagreements and disputes in your trust, estate, power of attorney, conservatorship or care situation? That’s not unusual. In fact, based on my experience, I would have to say that it’s pretty common. But it can also be a game changer.

Generally a fiduciary such as a trustee, executor or conservator, and sometimes an attorney in fact, should always hire an attorney when challenging or difficult issues or significant assets are involved. The question is whether one of the parties who is involved in the situation has, or needs to, or may, or likely will hire an attorney with a view toward litigation? That’s a game changer when that possibility might occur or actually does.

Trust, estate, conservatorship, power of attorney, care and elder abuse situations and litigation are complicated legal practice areas that typically can involve a lot of emotional feelings and mistrust, and that require the attorney to know multiple areas of law and court procedure.

If you are a fiduciary such as a trustee, executor, conservator or attorney in fact you need to hire an attorney who can advise you properly about your responsibilities and on the administration of the trust, estate and assets, or on the care and daily living needs of the conservatee or person in need, with a view toward helping you to satisfy your responsibilities effectively and correctly, practicing prudent risk management and documentation, avoiding liability and litigation, and prevailing in court if the situation ends up in court.

If you are a beneficiary you need to hire an attorney who can steer you correctly to help you protect your rights and obtain the assets that were intended for you, and not waste your resources and the resources of the trust or of the estate, or possibly cause you to be surcharged for the attorneys’ fees of the other side, with a view toward prevailing in court if the situation ends up in court. If you are a beneficiary you also don’t want to unknowingly contest a trust or will or possibly disinherit yourself.

And if you are a trustor who is no longer trustee, or a principal under a power of attorney, or a conservatee, you need to feel and know that your physical, mental and financial needs and rights are correctly and timely cared for and protected, and you might also need to be represented by legal counsel. In fact, if the situation ends up in court, in some situations, such as in a conservatorship, you have an absolute right to be represented by an attorney, and in other situations the court should and will on its own appoint legal counsel to represent and advocate for you.

For additional information, the following is a link to my summary paper discussing trustee and beneficiary responsibilities and rights, and you can also find helpful information about other situations on other posts on this blog, CLICK HERE

Contact me if you would like to discuss your situation. You can contact me by sending me an email at davetateesq@gmail.com. Before we discuss your situation I will need to know the names of the people and attorneys involved to check for any possible conflicts.

Wishing you the very best,

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California

DTatePicture_Square

IMPORTANT NEW CONSERVATORSHIP JURY RIGHT CASE (LPS) – AND THE IMPACT ON PROBATE CONSERVATORSHIP JURY RIGHT

Posted on by

Conservatorship of Kevin A., California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, October 2, 2015, Case No. F070914

In the LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short Act) conservatorship of Kevin A. the Court of Appeal held that the proposed conservatee, Kevin A., was denied his right to a jury trial where he objected to the petition for conservatorship and he personally expressed his request for a trial by jury, but the Court nevertheless proceeded to determine the matter without a jury. Here is a copy of the Opinion, Conservatorship of Kevin A. Opinion from Court Website

In relevant part, the Court held as follows:

  1. In a situation where a proposed conservatee objects to or contests the petition for conservatorship, the right to proceed before a jury at trial, as opposed to an adjudication by the Court, rests completely with the proposed conservatee, not with the proposed conservatee’s attorney or the Court, unless the Court first finds that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide for himself or herself whether to proceed before a jury.
  2. In Kevin A. the Court made no specific finding that Kevin A. lacked capacity to decide for himself whether to proceed before a jury.
  3. Alternatively, if the Court determines that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide whether to proceed before a jury, the control of the decision whether to demand or waive the right to a jury belongs to the proposed conservatee’s attorney, despite the proposed conservatee’s objection.
  4. Regardless of the fact that a proposed conservatee suffers from mental illness or related disorders, those conditions preclude any categorical inference that the proposed conservatee is unable to make a decision regarding whether to demand or waive a jury trial.

In a LPS conservatorship the petitioner, not the proposed conservatee, has the burden of proving that the conservatorship should be granted. Here’s an interesting question: since in a LPS conservatorship an adjudication by a jury to grant the petition for conservatorship must be unanimous, in the situation where the proposed conservatee is objecting to or contesting the need for the conservatorship, would there be a strategic advantage for the proposed conservatee to demand a jury trial instead of proceeding before the single judge?

Next question, how, if at all, does the holding or reasoning in Kevin A. also impact or relate to general probate conservatorship proceedings under California Probate Code §§1800, et seq.? In summary, for the reasons discussed below, it appears that the reasoning in Kevin A. would similarly apply in general probate conservatorship cases and the proposed conservatee’s right to decide whether to proceed before a jury in those cases.

In a general probate conservatorship the proposed conservatee also has the right to demand a jury trial on the issue whether or not the conservatorship should be granted. Probate Code §1828(a)(6). Additionally, in a general probate conservatorship both the court investigator and the Court are required by statute to inform the proposed conservatee about a number of his or her legal rights, including, or example, his or her rights to object to the petition for conservatorship, and to decide whether or not to have a jury trial. See Probate Code §§1826 and 1828.

Both LPS and general probate conservatorships also follow the normal rules of civil procedure. Probate Code §§1000, 1827 and 2100; Welfare and Institutions Code §5350. In fact, although the LPS conservatorship statutory provisions are provided for under the California Welfare and Institutions Code (see W&I Code §§5000, et seq.), the Court in Kevin A. stated as follows, recognizing that the procedure for establishing a LPS conservatorship is also the procedure that is used for establishing a general probate conservatorship:

“Section 5350 provides, in relevant part, the “procedure for establishing, administering, and terminating a conservatorship under this chapter shall be the same as that provided in Division 4 (commencing with Section 1400) of the Probate Code ….” Probate Code section 1827 provides: “The court shall hear and determine the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship according to the law and procedure relating to the trial of civil actions, including trial by jury if demanded by the proposed conservatee.” Section 1828 of the Probate Code requires the court to “inform the proposed conservatee” of his or her “right to oppose the proceeding, to have the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship tried by jury, to be represented by legal counsel if the proposed conservatee so chooses, and to have legal counsel appointed by the court if unable to retain legal counsel.” (Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (a)(6).) Thereafter, the court must “consult the proposed conservatee to determine the proposed conservatee’s opinion” regarding the “establishment of the conservatorship,” the “appointment of the proposed conservator” and any limitation to his or her legal capacities. (Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)”

Similar to a LPS conservatorship, in a general probate conservatorship it is also the burden of the petitioner to prove that there is a need for a conservatorship, i.e., that the petition for conservatorship should be granted. Although the amount or degree of proof that is required to prove that a conservatorship should be granted is different in a LPS conservatorship than it is in a general probate conservatorship, beyond a reasonable doubt compared to clear and convincing evidence, respectively, and a LPS generally is probably thought of as being a more serious type of conservatorship, an argument can be made that a general probate conservatorship could be an equally or even more serious type of conservatorship because the LPS conservatorship lasts for one year, at which time it must be renewed, whereas the general probate conservatorship lasts until it is either modified by Court order or the conservatee dies. Additionally, in general probate conservatorships the conservator and the Court also are or might be making decisions relating to the conservatee’s personal freedoms and restrictions, placement including possible locked or restricted facilities, and medications.

Conservatorship cases are numerous in number and involve important rights, but relatively speaking there have been very few appellate-level court decisions involving conservatorships. And, although I don’t have the statistics, if the statistics even exist, there are very few jury trials in contested general probate conservatorships – jury trials are not encouraged although the proposed conservatee has that absolute right. Further, whereas there are Judicial Council jury instructions for LPS conservatorships (see CACI 4000-4013), jury instructions for general probate conservatorship jury trials are not provided, although you can find a sample jury instruction that I wrote at http://wp.me/p1wbl8-8Q

Having more jury trials in conservatorship proceedings is a mixed bag. We have been primarily discussing the rights of the proposed conservatee because in fact it is only those rights that are being variously protected or restricted in general probate conservatorship proceedings. But requiring or having more jury trials in contested general probate conservatorships to a certain extent does put more burden on the Court system – seating a jury and conducting a jury trial does take more time. And if they had a choice, the majority of the parties who find themselves petitioning for the establishment of a conservatorship logically might greatly prefer to not have to incur the additional time, expense, and uncertainty that a jury trial can cause. Some people might also argue that having to seat a jury in some or perhaps even in many conservatorship cases could be wasteful of resources or should be unnecessary where it might appear evident beforehand and even prior to trial that some form of assistance or conservatorship might be helpful or granted. Nevertheless, those arguments could be made in every case, whether civil, criminal or probate, where a party has a right to decide whether to proceed before a jury, and at law do those arguments overlook the proposed conservatee’s acknowledged legal and procedural protections and rights?

Following the reasoning in Kevin A. and viewing the proposed conservatee’s personal and procedural rights from a legal prospective, in a contested general probate conservatorship, unless the Court determines that there is substantial evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks the capacity to decide whether to proceed before a jury, the decision whether to have a jury trial rests with the proposed conservatee. And arguably in some cases it might be strategically advantageous for the proposed conservatee to demand a jury if the proposed conservatee could have a better chance of prevailing compared to when the adjudication is being made by the single judge.

And one last final question or issue: in both LPS and general probate conservatorships, has it been sufficiently explained to the proposed conservatee not only what the petition requests and that he or she has the right to agree to or to oppose the conservatorship, but also that he or she has the right to a jury trial and whether a jury trial could present advantages or disadvantages in that specific case?

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California

Trustee Portfolio Investment Strategy Risk Management – Very Relevant Now And Always

Posted on by

The following post is updated from a prior post – this topic is always relevant, including in today’s environment.

A trustee needs a portfolio investment strategy in keeping with the terms of the trust and legal requirements.

In pertinent part California Probate Code section 16047(b) provides:

“A trustee’s investment and management decisions respecting individual assets and courses of action must be evaluated not in isolation, but in the context of the trust portfolio as a whole and as a part of an overall investment strategy having risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the trust.”

In discussing circumstances that are appropriate to consider in investing and managing trust liabilities section 16047(c)(4) also lists the role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.

You should read section 16047 in its entirety, in addition to the terms of the trust and other applicable statutory and case law; however, the point is that a trustee needs to have a portfolio investment strategy.

And there is another very important reason to have a portfolio investment strategy. Investments will naturally increase and decrease in value over time, and even daily. Although facts and circumstances in each different situation will vary, assuming that there is a portfolio investment strategy and that the portfolio investment strategy and other relevant facts are appropriate for the trust and the beneficiaries, as a general rule gains and losses of different investments within that portfolio investment strategy should be netted such that the trustee gets the benefit of both gains and losses if there is an assertion or claim that the trustee breached his or her management and investment fiduciary duties. Whereas, if there is no overall portfolio investment strategy, there is more of a likelihood that the gains and losses will not be netted, and that a trustee might be chargeable with a loss in a particular investment without the benefit of gains in other investments.

And this also reinforces the need for trustees to regularly review the portfolio investment strategy and the individual investments to make sure that the investments and allocation of investments are appropriate – although gains and losses should be netted as part of an overall portfolio investment strategy, if a particular investment becomes unsuitable or unsuitable to that overall investment strategy and if time continues to pass without a reevaluation of that investment by the trustee, not immediately, but over time, and argument might arise that it might no longer be appropriate to consider that individual investment and losses or gains in that investment as part of the overall portfolio investment strategy. In that circumstance the trustee could find that a court might treat that investment as a standalone investment and also treat gains and losses in that investment in the same manner without the benefit of netting with other investments. Obviously although that situation for the trustee might turn out okay if there is a gain in that investment, it does create greater investment loss risk for the trustee. Additionally, whereas the investment might initially gain in value, is also possible that an argument might arise that a subsequent loss in that individual investment might not be netted with the prior gains in that investment.

The facts and circumstances in each situation will vary, and each situation must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of that trust and that situation. Additionally, different judges will have differing approaches to trustee investment duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, having a portfolio investment strategy approach, and timely reviewing that strategy, the investments made, and the investment allocation within the context of the trust, the beneficiaries, statutory and case law, and the investment and economic environment will help manage and reduce trustee investment liability risk.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

Materials on Undue Influence and Susceptibility to Undue Influence

Posted on by

I have a high interest in the validity or lack of validity of will, trust and other estate planning and transfer documents including related mental capacity, undue influence, fraud, decedent or testator intent, document and wording interpretation, and elder abuse. These are issues or criteria that we very often see in will and trust disputes, and financial elder abuse. It’s not too difficult to find discussions in which the author defines undue influence in various legal terms or definitions, and in deed you can find similar discussions in my materials, including that the definitions have changed and are changing over time and that they also depend on the nature of the document or issue at hand including for example whether the document is a will or trust and the sophistication or complexity of the document and its contents. However, as a trial attorney dealing with evidence and expert witnesses the victim’s susceptibility to undue influence and whether or not the victim was in fact unduly influenced or unduly persuaded are equally or perhaps more interesting.

For example, there are many new articles being written about dementia and new findings about how early cognitive deficiencies are being found (i.e., much earlier that previously thought); however, a deeper look considers the extent to which the deficiency makes the person susceptible to undue influence and all of the factors that go into that evaluation. As I like to pass along to my readers worthwhile information and links written by other people, the following is a link that contains discussions about undue influence and susceptibility from a psychological perspective. I believe it is worthwhile reading. Click on the following link for the materials, CLICK HERE

And if you come across materials on these topics that you believe that I should read please do pass them along to me.

Thank you. Have a good weekend. Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)