Crucial Inquiry Is Whether Temporary Conserator Acted In Good Faith and in Best Interest of Conservatee.
Strange procedural cases actually produce new law, which is what happened in Conservatorship of Cornelius, Case No. A131495 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 15, 2011) (certified for publication).
In this one, a 73-year old widower, who apparently associated with people who lived in his house rent-free, obtained money/credit cards from him, and operated a marijuana farm, was placed into temporary conservatorship even though due to some strange twists no permanent conservatorship ever matured. The trial court did award attorney’s fees and costs to the temporary conservator (a daughter) and her attorneys along the way–all totaling about $34,000, some of which were other conservatorship expenses by others. Conservatee appealed, principally arguing that the failure to obtain a permanent conservatorship precluded fees/costs resulting from the temporary conservatorship.
Not so, said the appellate court. Probate Code sections 2641(a) and 2642(a) make no distinction between temporary and permanent conservators–”and we perceive no reason to draw one,” finding solace in the reasoning from Estate of Moore, 258 Cal.App.2d 458, 459-464 (1968). The relevant question was whether the temporary conservator acted in good faith, based on the best interest of her father, something that the Court of Appeal found because there was overwhelming support for this conclusion in the record below. Fee awards affirmed.