Due Process Required The Reversal.
In Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha A., Case No. G063437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2025) (unpublished), a conservator was awarded attorney’s fees of $94,955, a reduction from the request of $186,990 after the lower court entertained and granted certain oral objections by one of two daughters. Earlier, the trial court had indicated that all objections had to be in writing. The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Moore, reversed and remanded. The reason was due process: “Courts set procedures and briefing schedules for a reason—so that all parties know what to expect. This ensures fairness and due process. Following its own procedures is never more important than in a complex highly contested case . . . . [¶ ] Courts certainly have the power to reconsider or modify their own interim orders. (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 388.) But if the court chooses to do so, particularly on a matter of significance, as a matter of due process, notice to the parties is required. (See Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7; In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1351.)” The appellate court remanded and provided two options to the judge below: (1) the hearing would proceed based only on written objections; or (1) the trial court could conduct an evidentiary hearing on the second fee account.