Court Opinion

ID: 9530350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:16.322932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.161532
License: Public Domain

McFADDEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court order of March 17,1975, limited appellant Hoffman’s duties as co-conservator of the estate of Shawn Lynn Brixey. Part 4 of Idaho’s Uniform Probate Code, which is controlling here, provides a comprehensive statutory scheme for protecting the property of a minor. I.C. § 15-5-426 of this Part authorizes the court to limit the powers of a conservator. However, if the court limits a conservator’s power to acquire or dispose of an estate asset, “the limitation shall be indorsed upon his letters of appointment.” I.C. § 15-5-426. The letters of conservatorship appointing Ira J. Hoffman co-conservator of the estate of Shawn Lynn Brixey indicate no such limitation. Moreover, nothing in the March 17 order either expressly or impliedly relieved Hoffman of his fiduciary duties with respect to the insurance proceeds. I am therefore of the opinion that the magistrate’s order of March 17 did not relieve appellant Hoffman of his responsibility to assure that the insurance proceeds were properly maintained.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion regarding the bond. The letters of conservatorship appointing Hoffman co-conservator stated “bond to be furnished upon receipt of funds.” The majority ignores the mandatory nature of this order when, on page 6 of the majority opinion, it focuses on the security of the funds and concludes that failure to furnish a bond did not constitute a breach of Hoffman’s fiduciary duties. The duty to furnish bond was absolute, it was not conditioned on actual or apparent risk of loss. When the insurance company paid the sum of $11,150.00 in February of 1975, both of the co-conservators had a duty to see that a bond was furnished. If bond had been furnished, the loss resulting from Bond’s conversion of the insurance proceeds could have been recompensed by recovery on the bond. In my opinion, appellant Hoffman’s failure to assure that a bond was furnished constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties. I would therefore affirm the district court judgment.
Before DONALDSON, C. J., BAKES, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., and BEEBE, J. Pro Tern.