Source: https://brian-lerner-estate-blog.com/author/cbocalbos/
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 16:01:49
Document Index: 670463369

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1801', '§811', '§811', '§811', '§811', '§1022', '§1022', '§1801', '§1800']

Brian D. Lerner | Estate Attorney Blog
Probate Code §1801(b) describes two types of people for whom a conservator of the estate may be appointed:
The court may consider a deficit in mental functioning as evidence that the proposed conservatee lacks capacity only if the deficit “significantly impairs the person’s ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her actions with regard to the type of act or decision in question.” Prob C §811(b). For example, to establish a deficit in alertness and attention, it would not be sufficient to allege that the proposed conservatee is drowsy all day and inattentive to his or her surroundings. Instead, the petition must show that the proposed conservatee fails to bathe and eat for days at a time or that, due to lack of attention, he or she routinely wanders into unfamiliar neighborhoods and becomes lost or disoriented.
Probate Code §811 lists four mental functions: (1) alertness and attention, (2) information processing, (3) thought processes, and (4) ability to modulate mood and affect. The petitioner must present evidence that the proposed conservatee has a deficit in one or more mental functions and that there is a correlation between the deficit or deficits and the acts or decisions of the proposed conservatee. In other words, the deficits must render the proposed conservatee unable to make and communicate decisions or to understand and appreciate the consequences of those decisions, with the effect that a conservatorship is necessary. Prob C §§811–812, 1801.
That proof is made by applying the analytical structure of Prob C §811 to the facts of the proposed conservatee’s life. The best practice is to do this in the initial conservatorship pleadings. A verified Petition for Appointment of Probate Conservator (Judicial Council Form GC-310) and the accompanying Confidential Supplemental Information declaration (Judicial Council Form GC-312), if uncontested, will be accepted as evidence. See Prob C §1022. Thus, if the initial pleadings present clear and convincing evidence of the need for a conservatorship and are uncontroverted, the court may order the conservatorship without hearing further evidence. Prob C §§1022, 1801(e).
Posted on October 7 by Brian D. Lerner
Because the establishment of a conservatorship significantly curtails the conservatee’s rights, the court may not appoint a conservator unless the need for one is established by clear and convincing evidence. Prob C §1801(e). The court must review the conservatorship periodically to ensure that it remains in the best interests of the conservatee; the court investigator must report to the court at the following times (Prob C §§1800(e), 1850—but see Caveat below):
The establishment of a conservatorship shifts the responsibility for making financial and personal care decisions from the conservatee to the conservator; the relationship of conservator and conservatee is a fiduciary relationship. P
A conservatorship imposes significant limitations on the conservatee’s ability to act on his or her own behalf. Under a conservatorship of the estate, a conservatee is presumed to lack capacity to contract; to sell, transfer, or convey property; to make gifts; to incur debts (except in limited circumstances); to delegate powers; to waive any rights; or to serve as a fiduciary.