Opinion ID: 2760236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R eferee’s Findings

Text: On count I, the thrust of which was a lack of competence and diligence while serving as Dell’s guardian and conservator, the referee found that respondent’s conduct violated his oath of office. The referee found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to timely file the initial inventory, as well as annual accountings and reports, causing the court to repeatedly issue orders to show cause. He also failed to file his final accounting and to terminate the guardianship and conservatorship until 3 years after Dell’s death. The referee found Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CONNOR 665 Cite as 289 Neb. 660 those actions to be a failure to provide competent representation and reasonable diligence and promptness. The referee rejected relator’s claims that respondent’s actions in failing to sell Dell’s home amounted to incompetence, because many of the delays were outside respondent’s control or were a simple matter of judgment. He rejected the allegation that respondent misled the court in requesting continuances, noting that “[t]here is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent gave false reasons in support of his requests for continuance or that he misled the Court in any way.” The referee found that there was no evidence of dishonesty, but that the length of time to close the estate exhibited a lack of competence, diligence, and promptness. On count II, regarding respondent’s handling of Dell’s estate, the referee also determined that respondent’s actions violated his oath of office. The referee found that some of the initial delays resulted from Fogerty’s reclusiveness and inaccessibility during her time as personal representative, compounded by her subsequent death, as well as the successor personal representative’s refusal to serve and, finally, Hurst’s grudging acceptance of the responsibility. Moreover, the contractor’s slow progress in making renovations and the slow housing market during the winter of 2010-11 caused further delay. Ultimately, the referee determined that respondent’s “inability to account for all of the cash expenditures prevented him from completing the accounting and closing the estate” and that clear and convincing evidence showed that “respondent was, in large part, responsible for the fact that the estate of Geraldine Dell was not closed for more than seven years from the day she died.” The referee determined that respondent lacked competence and diligence in not attempting to sell or otherwise dispose of the estate’s personal property. The personal property that respondent caused to be stored was of little or no value and was eventually abandoned by Hurst after storage fees in the amount of $2,825 had been incurred. Regarding allegations relating to the safekeeping of estate funds, the parties did not dispute that respondent had Hurst sign numerous blank checks in advance to avoid trips to Nebraska Advance Sheets 666 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS Gretna, Nebraska, where Hurst resided. Moreover, the contractor performing the renovations insisted on being paid in cash. Although respondent initially inspected the invoices and receipts from the contractor, he gradually began to simply place the receipts in a folder at his office without inspecting them. Many of the receipts and invoices were merely informal, handwritten notes from the contractor rather than official receipts. Respondent withdrew large amounts of cash from the estate’s bank account instead of writing separate checks to the contractor. He kept the cash in an envelope at his office and used it to pay the contractor’s invoices. The referee found that respondent “grossly mishandled” the funds from Dell’s estate. Although not “client funds, they were funds for which respond­ ent’s client . . . was responsible and accountable.” We find that the evidence is clear and convincing that respondent failed to maintain complete and accurate records of such account funds in violation of § 3-501.15(a). However, we also note that respondent never comingled the estate cash with other cash, and eventually, respondent was able to account for the discrepancies and apparent shortcomings in the estate’s funds.