Filed 1/28/21 Conservatorship of Rodriguez CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

Conservatorship of the Person 

and Estate of Olga C. Rodriguez.

_______________________________

MARIA I. DURAN, as 

Conservator, etc.,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

OLGA C. RODRIGUEZ,

 Conservatee and Respondent.

 B303879

 

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 19STPB01141)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County. Paul T. Suzuki, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

StakerLaw Tax and Estate Planning and Kevin G. Staker 

for Petitioner and Appellant.

Law Offices of Stephen R. McLeod and Stephen McLeod for 

Conservatee and Respondent.

_____________________________
2

We dismiss as moot a conservator’s appeal from a probate 

court order, because the respondent conservatee died during the 

pendency of the appeal. 

Petitioner and appellant Maria I. Duran was appointed

conservator of the person and estate of her mother, Olga C. 

Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez, the conservatee, was 88 years old, 

diagnosed with dementia, unable to provide for her own care, and 

residing in an assisted living facility.

Petitioner and the conservatee owned the conservatee’s 

principal residence as joint tenants. The conservatee’s interest in 

the home was her only asset. Petitioner sold the home, and the 

conservatee’s share of the proceeds amounted to about $244,000. 

Petitioner sought a substituted judgment authorizing her, 

as conservator, to gift the conservatee’s share of the proceeds to 

herself, at the rate of $9,336 per day. This, she says, would allow 

the conservatee to qualify for long term care benefits under MediCal, without incurring any period of ineligibility. The courtappointed attorney for the conservatee agreed with petitioner’s 

proposal. 

The trial court did not agree with petitioner’s proposal, 

instead authorizing petitioner to gift $1,000 per month of the 

conservatee’s funds to herself. 

Petitioner appealed from the court’s order on January 24, 

2020, and the conservatee died on July 28, 2020, before briefing 

began. 

In her opening brief, petitioner tells us that she seeks 

judicial review, “not for relief,” but because the conservatee was 

“exposed to harm” by the ruling and because the ruling “may 

affect others seeking court authority to do Medi-Cal planning on 

behalf of a conservatee.” Respondent, the court-appointed 
3

attorney for the late conservatee, agrees with petitioner’s 

interpretation of Medi-Cal law and contends the death of 

conservatee does not render the issue moot, because the issue of 

“access to long term care under the terms of Federal and State 

law” is of great public importance.

The case is clearly moot, as a decision can provide no relief 

to petitioner. Nor does the case qualify for an exercise of our 

discretion “to decide otherwise moot cases presenting important 

issues that are capable of repetition yet tend to evade review.” 

(Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1; 

see Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 

743, 745, fn. 3 [“On issues of great public interest, we have the 

inherent discretion to resolve the matter despite events which 

may render the matter moot.”].) Even if we assume the issue 

raised is one of “important public interest” as respondent asserts, 

we see no basis to conclude it is an issue that would tend to evade 

review.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot. No costs are awarded.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

WILEY, J.