Opinion ID: 2735558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Gardner’s 1998 Appointment

Text: In April 1998 Ms. Taylor‟s appointment was vacated because she failed to post the required surety, and on May 4, 1998, Judge Haywood appointed Bruce E. Gardner as “conservator of Edward T. Smith, adult ward.” This order was issued by handwriting “Bruce E. Gardner, Esq.” and “conservator” into blanks provided on a preprinted form, but it did not identify the source of the court‟s authority to make the appointment. The corresponding Certificate of Appointment, issued by 7 the Register of Wills, indicates that Mr. Gardner was appointed “successor conservator pursuant to the provisions of the D.C. Code 21-1501 et seq. (1981 [ed.]) of the estate of Edward T. Smith,” notwithstanding that this statute had already been repealed by the time of Mr. Gardner‟s appointment and that this statute only applied to a person who was “unable, by reason of . . . mental weakness not amounting to unsoundness of mind, properly to care for his property.” D.C. Code § 21-1501 (1981). Mr. Smith, of course, had been found to be “of unsound mind.”3 On January 16, 2001, Mr. Gardner petitioned the court to terminate the conservatorship, representing that there were no additional assets to recover, Mr. Smith‟s VA benefits were being sent directly to the psychiatric facility in New York, and Mr. Gardner had been inactive since recovering certain assets for the estate. Ultimately, the court denied this request. It was not until April 7, 2009, that a hearing was held to “explore options to be taken by the conservator towards 3 D.C. Code § 21-564 (b) provided that a person who had been hospitalized by “judicial decree” prior to September 15, 1964, “shall, upon the expiration of the one-year period immediately following September 15, 1964, be deemed to have been restored to legal capacity unless, within the one-year period, affirmative action is commenced to have the person adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Superior Court took notice of this provision or considered Mr. Smith no longer to be of “unsound mind.” Nor does the record reflect that any “affirmative action” was taken to have Mr. Smith once again “adjudicated mentally incompetent.” 8 the possible termination or closure and potential transfer of this former law conservatorship proceeding to an Intervention (INT) or Supplemental Needs Trust (SNT) case type proceeding, including whether a guardian should be appointed for the ward.” About a month later, another hearing was held, and Mr. Gardner was ordered to file a petition for intervention. On May 22, 2009, Mr. Gardner filed the petition with the Register of Wills and, according to Mr. Gardner, the petition was mailed to the ward at the nursing home in New York. Nevertheless, on July 30, 2009, the petition was dismissed because Mr. Smith had not been personally served. See D.C. Code § 21-2042.