CO Code § 15-14-413 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 15 - Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries|Article 14 - Persons Under Disability - Protection|Part 4 - Protection of Property of Protected Person|§ 15-14-413. Who May Be Conservator - Priorities - Prohibition of Dual Roles

  Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, the court, in appointing a conservator, shall consider persons otherwise qualified in the following order of priority:   A conservator, guardian of the estate, or other like fiduciary appointed or recognized by an appropriate court of any other jurisdiction in which the protected person resides;    A person nominated as conservator by the respondent, including the respondent's specific nomination of a conservator made in a durable power of attorney or given priority to be a conservator in a designated beneficiary agreement made pursuant to article 22 of this title, if the respondent has attained twelve years of age;    An agent appointed by the respondent to manage the respondent's property under a durable power of attorney;    The spouse of the respondent;  (d.5) The partner in a civil union of the respondent;     An adult child of the respondent;    A parent of the respondent; and    An adult with whom the respondent has resided for more than six months immediately before the filing of the petition.       A respondent's nomination or appointment of a conservator shall create priority for the nominee or appointee only if, at the time of nomination or appointment, the respondent had sufficient capacity to express a preference.    A person having priority under paragraph   , (d), (d.5), (e), or (f) of subsection (1) of this section may designate in writing a substitute to serve instead and thereby transfer the priority to the substitute.       With respect to persons having equal priority, the court shall select the one it considers best qualified. The court, for good cause, may decline to appoint a person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority.    An owner, operator, or employee of a long-term care provider from which the respondent is receiving care may not be appointed as conservator unless related to the respondent by blood, marriage, or adoption.      Unless the court makes specific findings for good cause shown or the person is a family caregiver as defined in section 25.5-10-202, C.R.S., the same professional may not act as an incapacitated person's or a protected person's:   Guardian and conservator; or    Guardian and direct service provider; or    Conservator and direct service provider.       In addition, a guardian or conservator may not employ the same person to act as both care manager and direct service provider for the incapacitated person or protected person unless the person is a family caregiver as defined in section 25.5-10-202, C.R.S.         History. Source: L. 2000: Entire part R&RE, p. 1815, § 1, effective January 1, 2001 (see § 15-17-103 ). L. 2009: (1) amended,(HB 09-1260), ch. 107, p. 445, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2010: (1)(b) amended,(SB 10-199), ch. 374, p. 1753, § 19, effective July 1. L. 2011: (6) amended,(SB 11-083), ch. 101, p. 308, § 16, effective August 10. L. 2013: (1) and (3) amended,(SB 13-011), ch. 49, p. 166, § 21, effective May 1; IP(6)(a) and (6)(b) amended,(HB 13-1314), ch. 323, p. 1803, § 27, effective March 1, 2014.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 15-14-410 as it existed prior to 2001.   Cross references:   For provisions relating to the time of taking effect or the provisions for transition of this code, see § 15-17-101 .   COMMENT   This section gives top priority for appointment to existing conservators appointed elsewhere, to the respondent's nominee for the position, and to the respondent's agent, in that order. Existing conservators are granted a first priority for two reasons. First, many of these cases will involve transfers of a conservatorship from another state. To assure a smooth transition, the currently appointed conservator appointed in this state or another should have the right to the appointment at the new location. Second, many cases may involve situations where a conservatorship appointment is sought despite the appointment in another place. Granting the existing conservator priority will deter such forum shopping. Should the existing conservator be inappropriate for some reason, subsection (c) permits the court to skip over the existing conservator and appoint someone with lower priority or even no priority.   A conservator or individual nominated by the respondent or the agent named in the respondent's durable power of attorney has priority for appointment over the respondent's relatives. The nomination may include anyone nominated orally at the hearing, if the respondent has sufficient capacity at the time to express a preference. The nomination may also be made by separate document. While it is generally good practice for an individual to nominate as conservator the agent named in a durable power of attorney, the section grants such an agent a preference in the absence of a specific nomination. The agent is granted preference on the theory that the agent is the person the respondent would most likely prefer to act. The nomination of the agent will also make it more difficult for someone to use a conservatorship to thwart the agent's authority. To assure that the agent will be in a position to assert his priority, Section 5-404(b) requires that the agent receive notice of the proceeding. Also, until the court has acted to approve the revocation of that authority, Section 5-411(d) provides that the authority of an agent takes precedence over that of the conservator.   Subsection (a)(7) gives a seventh-level preference to a domestic partner or companion or an individual who has a close, personal relationship with the respondent. Note there is no requirement that the respondent have resided with the other person for more than six months to the filing of the petition, just that the requisite residency have occurred at some point in time before the petition is filed. Courts should use a reasonableness standard in applying this subsection so that priority is given to someone with whom the respondent has had a close, enduring relationship. For factors to consider in making this determination, the detailed comment to Section 5-304.  immediately prior see  While this section substantially overlaps with Section 5-310, the comparable provision on selection of guardians, there are some differences. For example, Section 5-310 denies a priority to an emergency or temporary guardian, but this section does not expressly deny a priority for appointment to an emergency or temporary conservator appointed in another state. But the failure in subsection (a)(1) to expressly exclude these categories of conservator does not mean that they enjoy a priority for appointment. Unlike the case with guardians, emergency or temporary conservators are not included within the definition of “conservator” found in Section 5-102(1).   Subsection (d) prohibits anyone affiliated with a long-term care facility at which the respondent is receiving care from being appointed as conservator absent a blood, marital or adoptive arrangement. Strict application of this subsection is crucial to avoid a conflict of interest and to protect the protected person from potential financial exploitation. Each state enacting Parts 1-4 of this article needs to insert the particular term or terms used in the state for facilities considered to be long-term care institutions.   Standard 3.4.11 “Qualifications and Appointments of Conservators” (1993), recognizes that the court should appoint as conservator one who is both willing and suitable to manage the respondent's finances and property, based on the nature of the respondent's estate and the respondent's incapacity. The standard provides a preference in appointment to one known by, related to, or requested by the respondent.  National Probate Court Standards,  This section is based on UGPPA (1982) Section 2-309 (UPC Section 5-409 (1982)).   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Determination of Heirship by Special Proceedings and Temporary Conservationship”, see 14 Colo. Law. 1781 (1985). For article, “Divorce Considerations Relevant to an Estate Planning Practice”, see 29 Colo. Law. 53 (Feb. 2000). For article, “The Durable Power of Attorney: Defining the Agent's Duties”, see 41 Colo. Law. 49 (May 2012).   In the initial selection of a conservator the wishes of the ward should be given consideration, premised upon the mental ability of the ward to exercise a “sensible opinion” on the matter. The instant record demonstrates that the ward is unable to exercise such a sensible opinion as to who should serve as the conservator of his estate. No authority requires the probate court to substitute conservators because the ward prefers a different conservator. In re Estate of Alencoy v. Wysowatcky, 170 Colo. 385 , 461 P.2d 210 (1969) (decided under repealed § 153-9-1, C.R.S. 1963). In the initial selection of a conservator the wishes of the ward should be given consideration, premised upon the mental ability of the ward to exercise a “sensible opinion” on the matter. The instant record demonstrates that the ward is unable to exercise such a sensible opinion as to who should serve as the conservator of his estate. No authority requires the probate court to substitute conservators because the ward prefers a different conservator. In re Estate of Alencoy v. Wysowatcky, 170 Colo. 385 , 461 P.2d 210 (1969) (decided under repealed § 153-9-1, C.R.S. 1963).   Trial court failed to make findings regarding whether the respondent had sufficient capacity to nominate a guardian or conservator. Although a trial court, upon a showing of good cause, has the authority to appoint a respondent's preferred guardian and conservator, the court must make findings relative to good cause. In re Estate of Runyon, 2014 COA 181 , 343 P.3d 1072.