Opinion ID: 2581933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Conservatorship Statute Precludes Absolute Immunity for Conservators

Text: Judges are shielded by absolute immunity from civil actions for damages arising out of their judicial acts. Judicial immunity serves the twin purposes of protecting the finality of judgments and preserving judicial independence `by insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.' [2] Judicial immunity is for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences. [3] Judicial immunity is an absolute form of immunity; it applies no matter how erroneous the act may have been, how injurious its consequences, how informal the proceeding, or how malicious the motive. Only judicial actions taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction will deprive a judge of absolute immunity. [4] Absolute judicial immunity is extended not only to judges but to others who perform duties that are sufficiently related to the judicial process. The clearest case for quasi-judicial immunity is presented in instances where some aspect of the court's adjudicative responsibility is delegated to another official such as a master or referee. [5] And in Alaska, [6] as well as in almost all other jurisdictions, neutral court-appointed experts are also shielded by absolute quasi-judicial immunity. [7] But with respect to the question as to whether a conservator or other person appointed by a court to manage the person or property of a ward or the property of an estate enjoys absolute immunity, there is no similar unanimity. Cases applying a rule of absolute immunity to such officials include Cok v. Cosentino; [8] New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow; [9] Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada; [10] and Mosher v. Saalfeld. [11] Cases denying absolute immunity to such officials include Frey v. Blanket Corp.; [12] Collins ex rel. Collins v. Tabet; [13] and Edwards v. Pena. [14] We have no occasion here to choose between these lines of authority, or attempt to reconcile them, because absolute immunity for conservators is, in our view, precluded by the conservatorship statute, chapter 26 of title 13 of the Alaska Statutes. The most relevant section is AS 13.26.305 which provides: (a) Unless otherwise provided in the contract, a conservator is not individually liable on a contract properly entered into in a fiduciary capacity in the course of administration of the estate unless the conservator fails to reveal the representative capacity and identify the estate in the contract. (b) The conservator is individually liable for obligations arising from ownership or control of property of the estate or for torts committed in the course of administration of the estate only if personally at fault. (c) Claims based on contracts entered into by a conservator in a fiduciary capacity, on obligations arising from ownership or control of the estate, or on torts committed in the course of administration of the estate may be asserted against the estate by proceeding against the conservator in the fiduciary capacity, whether or not the conservator is individually liable for them. (d) Any question of liability between the estate and the conservator individually may be determined in a proceeding for accounting, surcharge, or indemnification, or other appropriate proceeding or action. Subsection (b) explicitly makes conservators liable for torts committed in the course of administration where they are personally at fault, and subsection (d) permits claims asserted by the estate against the conservator individually to be determined either in the conservatorship proceeding or in another appropriate action. The trial court ruled that subsection.305(b) read in the context of the other subsections of section .305 addresses the claims of third parties as against the estate or conservator, and does not provide a cause of action for the protected person against the conservator. We do not so interpret section.305. While subsections (a) and (c) concern claims of third parties against the estate or the conservator, subsection (b) is not so limited. And subsection (d) explicitly contemplates the adjudication of claims by the estate against the conservator individually. As to subsection (d), OPA argues that liability questions between the conservator and the ward are meant to be confined to the conservatorship proceedings and that in light of the court's power in such proceedings there is no need to provide for tort lawsuits by the protected person against her conservator.... OPA's assertion that the court in conservatorship proceedings can fairly adjudicate a claim by the ward against her conservator is doubtless true, for the court can apply discovery and other rules of civil procedure in such proceedings in order to ensure a fair adjudication. [15] But the relevant point for the present case is not in which forum liability claims against a conservator may be adjudicated, but whether such claims can be maintained at all. Subsection .305(d) plainly allows such claims. Other sections of the conservatorship statute also suggest that wards may pursue claims against conservators. Alaska Statute 13.26.245 provides that [i]n the exercise of powers, a conservator shall act as fiduciary and shall observe the standards of care applicable to trustees under AS 13.36.22513.36.290. The phrase standard of care is generally used to define the circumstances in which a party is liable in tort, and fiduciaries are generally liable to those whom they are charged with protecting when they breach their fiduciary duties. [16] Alaska Statute 13.26.215 authorizes the court to require a conservator to furnish a bond conditioned upon faithful discharge of all duties of the trust according to law. [17] Subsection .220(a)(1) provides that the conservator is jointly and severally liable with the sureties on the bond; subsection (2) of section .220(a) provides that the bond may be enforced in the court which appointed the conservator in any proceeding pertaining to the fiduciary duties of the conservator; and subsection (3) provides that any interested person can initiate a proceeding against the surety. The statutory bond requirement thus contemplates that claims for money damages may be brought for breaches of fiduciary duties against the conservator and the surety by any interested person. The statute does not suggest that the latter category does not include the ward. To the contrary, the ward is typically the person most directly affected by a breach of fiduciary duty. Based then on the statute governing conservatorships, we conclude that conservators are not shielded by absolute quasi-judicial immunity. For this reason the judgment of the superior court is REVERSED and this case must be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.