Opinion ID: 1401390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did Appointment of a Conservator Violate S.H.'s Jury Trial Rights?

Text: S.H. argues that appointing a conservator to deal with S.H.'s claims against his former employer deprived him of jury trial rights guaranteed him by the federal and Alaska constitutions. Although some courts have said that a guardian cannot waive a ward's rights, they have done so largely in context of waivers of substantive rights. [25] Other courts have expressly or impliedly affirmed the power of a guardian or conservator to waive procedural rights in order to achieve a benefit for the ward. [26] We think that a conservator must have this authority. Policy militates in favor of giving the conservator this power. If the conservator were unable to waive the ward's jury trial rights, no case triable by a jury could ever be settled. The wardalready deemed incapable in the law's eyeswould effectively retain control of the case. The purpose of the conservatorship, to protect the ward, [27] would be thwarted. [28] We therefore affirm, holding that a conservator has the power to waive the ward's jury trial rights. We note that the conservator must still exercise the statutory standard of care, which is equivalent to that of a trustee. [29] S.H. also argues that the master improperly denied his request for a jury trial on the question of his need for a conservator. He cites AS 13.26.113 in support. [30] CPS responds that S.H. did not timely request a jury trial. Alaska Probate Rule 11 requires that a demand for jury trial in this type of proceeding must be served no later than 20 days after service of the first pleading directed to a triable issue or five days before the scheduled hearing, whichever is earlier. [31] The first pleading here was filed in December 1996. S.H. first requested a jury when the hearing began, on July 10, 1997. The request was untimely. S.H. asserts briefly that his constitutional jury trial rights were infringed in the hearing on his need for a conservator. Not only is this assertion insufficiently briefed, [32] it does not protect S.H. from the consequences of his own waiver. [33] We affirm the superior court's determination that S.H. waived his right to jury trial of the conservatorship question.