Court Opinion

ID: 9843940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:52:39.918545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:20.147510
License: Public Domain

*76ANNUNZIATA, J.,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.
I join the principal opinion with respect to Parts U.A., U.B.2., U.B.3., and II.C. With respect to Part II.B.1,1 concur in the judgment to affirm on the ground that Code § 20-103(A)(vii) provided the trial court the authority to appoint a conservator in this case. With respect to Part II.B.4,1 concur in the judgment to hold husband’s estate responsible for the conservator’s fees accrued up to the time of husband’s death. However, I would hold that the trial court’s authority to award the conservator’s fees emanates from Code § 20-99(5), not Rule 4:12, and join the dissent with respect to its reasoning and conclusion that Rule 4:12, and the contempt power arising from the Rule, do not authorize the appointment of a conservator. I have not found any federal or state case or statute which authorizes the appointment of a conservator as a sanction for the violation of a court’s order to answer discovery requests related to the party’s estate and financial affairs.