Opinion ID: 1680603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Final Settlement of Conservatorship

Text: Boyd's argument that the order was respecting a matter of the final settlement of the conservatorship (emphasis added) suffers many of the same infirmities as her argument regarding settlement of the estate. The right of appeal to the circuit court in such a case arises only  [a]fter a final settlement, § 12-22-21(5), of the conservatorship, not from some act precedent to a final settlement. The Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, Ala. Code 1975, §§ 26-2A-1 to -160, as supplemented by Ala.Code 1975, §§ 26-5-1 to -54, recognizes two fiduciary capacities i.e., a `guardian' who is `of the person' and analogous to the role of the parent, and a `conservator' who is `of the property' and more closely analogous to the role of a trustee. Comment to § 26-2A-1. Although under this statutory scheme a guardianship terminates automatically on the death of the ward, § 26-2A-109, the ward's death does not terminate the guardian's liability for prior acts or the obligation to account for funds and assets of the ward. Id. The fiduciary relationship does not cease until there is an order discharging the guardian, which has been granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute. The death of the ward ... does not of itself operate as a discharge. 39 C.J.S. Guardian & Ward § 42 (2003) (footnotes omitted). The order in this case does not purport to discharge Boyd from liability as conservator. On the death of the ward, a final settlement of the conservatorship must be made. § 26-5-7 (emphasis added). In this context, a final settlement involves a final ascertainment of the guardian's liability, the rendition of a final decree, conclusive on him and his sureties, and on which execution could issue against them. Lee v. Lee, 55 Ala. 590, 603 (1876). [T]he object of settling the account of the guardian [is] to ascertain what estate and effects of the ward remain[ ] in his hands and should be paid over or delivered to the administratrix of the ward. Kimball v. Perkins, 130 Mass. 141, 142 (1880). A guardianship estate can't be closed out to thin airthe probate court must be apprised of the disposition of the conservatorship assets. Scott K. Summers, Guardianship & Conservatorship: A Handbook for Lawyers 191-92 (American Bar Association 1996). Boyd concedes that there has been no compliance with §§ 26-5-7 to -9, some of the provisions governing final settlements of guardianship estates. Indeed, she states: No accounting or final settlement of the conservatorship was held so as to be compliant with Ala.Code § 26-5-7 to -9 (1975). Boyd's brief, at 15. Thus, the status or disposition of the assets of the conservatorship has never been documented. For the same reasons, the June 5, 2000, order purporting to dismiss case no. 00-449 could not constitute a final settlement in the context of § 12-22-21(5). In that connection, the heirs argue that the June 5, 2000, order of the probate court in case no. 00-449 dismissed the conservatorship and that Boyd cannot now be heard [to insist] that such dismissal of the conservatorship can ... somehow provide the basis for her appeal to this Court or any other court for that matter, because, they contend, [t]he time limit for any such appeal therefrom long ago passed. The heirs' brief, at 16. To that argument, Boyd responds that the dismissal did not end the conservatorship, but, if it did, then the order entered in case no. 00-1014 was essentially a collateral attack on the judgment of dismissal and would be appealable as such. Reply brief, at 10. We agree with Boyd's first response to the heirs' argument, that is, that the dismissal did not end the conservatorship. Letters of conservatorship were granted upon Boyd's petition. Boyd's petition alleged that the estate consisted of approximately $6,000, and she posted a bond in that amount. The estate thus opened could not be closed out to thin air. Whatever legal effect might be ascribed to the order purporting to dismiss case no. 00-449, that order could not constitute a final settlement. Consequently, the order in case no. 00-1014 was not a collateral attack. The circuit court correctly construed that order as not constitut[ing] a final settlement of the ... conservatorship.