Court Opinion

ID: 9525076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:59:45.683622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:49.035803
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I regret that I must respectfully dissent in this case. While there is no doubt that what we seek to do here is commendable, I believe that the precedent we establish by our actions in this case is unwarranted, and I anticipate that we will be required at some future time to narrow the effect of the decision rendered today.
What the record discloses is we have a woman, 80 years of age, who has made some poor business transactions and who apparently lives in a lifestyle with which many of us would take issue. That is not, in my view, what is meant by the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2630(2) (Reissue 1979). While it is true the record does disclose that an individual of advanced age has improvidently dealt with her property, that is not the same as showing that she is un*834able to manage her property and affairs efficiently because of advanced age. The fact that one has. made bad investments or is inclined to give one’s property away is not sufficient to justify the appointment of a conservator over the objections of the one for whom the conservator is being sought. Were it otherwise, a number of us would have conservators appointed for us. Often all that persons of advanced age have left is their dignity and the ability to dispose of their property as they may choose. We should not. take that right away so quickly, absent evidence of mental incapacity. I would have reversed the action of the court in appointing a conservator in this case.
I am authorized to state that Caporale, J., joins in this dissent.