Opinion ID: 2516567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In re S.H.

Text: After working at Anchorage Refuse, Inc. (ARI) from 1991 to 1993, S.H. sued ARI in April 1995 alleging, among other things, that his fellow employees sadistically mistreated him. [2] His attorneys in that action were from the law firm of Clapp, Peterson, & Stowers (CPS). [3] Between May 1995 and December 1996, CPS attorneys Marcus Clapp and Thomas V. Van Flein grew uneasy with S.H.'s increasing obsession with the case. [4] S.H. began showing signs of instability, including irrational behavior, paranoia, inclinations toward gratuitous dismissal of his personal injury suit, a tendency to threaten his own witnesses, the desire to initiate direct and inappropriate dealings with opposition counsel and the judge, and a marked lack of confidentiality. [5] In 1996 and 1997 psychiatric experts examined S.H. in connection with the ARI litigation and because CPS was concerned with S.H.'s behavior. [6] The majority of these doctors concluded that S.H. had a mental impairment that made him unable to think rationally at times. [7] Only one doctor found S.H. to be capable of dealing rationally with the settlement proceedings. [8] Mediation between S.H. and ARI began in December 1996, and led to a $500,000 settlement offer by ARI. [9] S.H. refused to accept the offer, however, believing his case was worth $2 million. [10] CPS then filed a Petition for Appointment of Limited Conservator/Guardian Ad Litem of a Person due to its belief that S.H. was incapable of handling his affairs. [11] Superior Court Judge Karen L. Hunt appointed Ernest Schlereth to act as S.H.'s attorney in the conservatorship/guardianship proceeding on December 30. [12] In March 1997 Phillip Paul Weidner replaced Schlereth as S.H.'s attorney in the conservatorship/guardianship proceeding. [13] Master Andrew Brown commenced a hearing on the conservatorship/guardianship petition in July 1997, at which time S.H. requested a jury trial. [14] Master Brown denied the request for a jury trial and issued his report in August after a three-day hearing. [15] He recommended that a special conservator be appointed to act on S.H.'s behalf for the purposes of the ARI litigation and that the costs of that conservator be imposed on CPS. [16] The superior court adopted Master Brown's recommendation and appointed Paul Cossman as S.H.'s special conservator. [17] After reviewing S.H.'s case against ARI, Cossman concluded that it was in S.H.'s best interests to accept the $500,000 settlement offer [18] and approved the settlement. The settlement funds were placed in the court registry in order to allow S.H. to appeal the decision to appoint a special conservator and CPS to cross-appeal the imposition of the conservator's costs on CPS. [19] In August 1999 we decided S.H. I. We held that a conservator has the authority to settle a lawsuit; that the court properly considered S.H.'s ability to make litigation-related decisions, as opposed to his ability to make a rational decision in general; and that an inability to manage one's property need not be long-term to justify a conservatorship. [20] We further held that the conservator has the authority to waive the protected person's jury trial rights, reasoning that otherwise, the protected person, who had already [been] deemed incapable in the law's eyes, would retain control of the case. [21] Regarding S.H.'s request for a jury trial on the conservatorship/guardianship petition, we held that his request, coming more than twenty days after service of the first pleading and not before the first hearing, was untimely under Alaska Probate Rule 11. [22] Finally, we held that it was improper to impose the costs of the conservatorship on CPS and remanded the case to the superior court to impose those costs in accordance with AS 13.26.230. [23]