Clinesmith v. Temmerman, 298 P.3d 458

Background

Bruce Clinesmith, an elderly incapacitated person with dementia, underwent guardianship/conservatorship proceedings in 2005.
Decades, LLC was appointed temporary guardian/conservator to manage his estate, and a guardian ad litem was appointed.
Wife Cathe Temmerman and Mr. Stein allegedly met with Clinesmith in a private meeting at an elder care facility to execute a new estate plan.
The new estate plan granted Wife control as trustee/estate representative and removed assets from court jurisdiction; the district court voided it.
The August 29, 2005 order voiding the new estate plan and the October 7, 2005 order appointing Decades as permanent guardian/conservator were issued in the conservatorship proceeding.
Wife filed a notice of appeal in 2005, dismissed it in 2006, and a new appeal concerning the 2005 orders was filed in 2011, more than five years later.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the new estate plan	Temmerman argues lack of jurisdiction or that issues could not be addressed until after death	Decades/Wife contends the plan was within the motion’s scope and the court had general civil jurisdiction	District court had jurisdiction to address the new estate plan
Whether the district court’s voiding of the new estate plan was proper before Clinesmith’s death	Wife claims capacity issues should be resolved in probate and not pre-death"	Court balanced conservatorship duties and ruled the signing was improper interference	Court validly voided the new estate plan prior to death based on interfering conduct
Whether the October 7, 2005 final order was final and appealable	Appeal timing should not bar review if not final according to UPC rules	October 7 order resolved all petition-related issues and was final	October 7 order was final and the subsequent untimely appeal was dismissed under timely-file rules
Whether voluntary dismissal of an earlier appeal bars a later appeal	Dismissal should not bar a later timely appeal under UPC rules	Voluntary dismissal does not extend filing deadlines for a second appeal	Voluntary dismissal did not permit late filing; the second appeal was untimely
Whether the untimely appeal can be salvaged under Trujillo flexibility	Argues unique circumstances justify extending time	No unusual circumstances shown; strict deadline applies	Trujillo does not save this untimely appeal; dismissed

Key Cases Cited

In re Stein, 2008-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 25, 27, 32 (N.M. 2008) (discusses conduct by counsel representing a protected person and limits onRepresentation in conflicts)
In re Estate of Harrington, 2000-NMCA-058, 129 N.M. 266, 5 P.3d 1070 (N.M. 2000) (district courts have general civil jurisdiction in conservatorship proceedings)
Lucero v. Lucero, 118 N.M. 636, 884 P.2d 527 (Ct. App. 1994) (capacity determinations may be addressed post hoc; conservator action may affect capacity issues)
In re Estate of Duncan, 2002-NMCA-069, 132 N.M. 426, 50 P.3d 175 (N.M. 2002) (highlights notice/oversight requirements in conservatorship proceedings)
In re Estate of Newalla, 114 N.M. 290, 837 P.2d 1373 (Ct. App. 1992) (finality of petitions and orders in UPC proceedings; integration with Rule 1-054 NMRA)
Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (N.M. 1994) (timeliness rules for civil appeals; limited extension in unusual cases)
Ottino v. Ottino, 2001-NMCA-012, 130 N.M. 168, 21 P.3d 37 (N.M. 2001) (jurisdictional and appellate review principles in family/probate matters)
Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2009) (statutory interpretation for timely appeals in UPC contexts)
Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, 138 N.M. 126, 118 P.3d 116 (N.M. 2005) (applies standards for timely appeal and review)
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033 (N.M. 1992) (finality and appealability in civil actions)