Conservatorship of Farrant, B307338

Background

Norma Farrant (born 1926) executed a durable power of attorney in 2008 naming her son, Duane Farrant, attorney‑in‑fact effective upon incapacity; a physician found Norma incapacitated in June 2015.
Duane controlled Norma’s pension checks and received rental income from a half‑interest in the Newbury Park property beginning September 21, 2014. A Missouri court had earlier ordered him to account for transactions during Sept. 21, 2014–2015, which he did not comply with.
Angelique Friend was appointed conservator of Norma’s person and estate in January 2017 and petitioned the Ventura County probate court to compel Duane to file an accounting (Sept. 21, 2014–Jan. 31, 2018). Duane repeatedly delayed and missed deadlines.
The probate court found Duane received unreported pension income ($35,656.76) and rental income ($50,575 net to Norma), less allocable property expenses, resulting in a surcharge and judgment of $63,448.90 against Duane.
The court also imposed monetary sanctions of $1,000 per day for 121 days ($121,000) for failure to timely file the accounting; Duane appealed, raising three principal challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Friend)	Defendant's Argument (Farrant)	Held
1. Whether the probate court abused discretion by ordering Duane to render an accounting	An accounting was proper because Duane controlled Norma’s funds and either owed or stood in a relationship requiring an accounting (and was attorney‑in‑fact under the durable POA).	Duane argued he owed no fiduciary duty to the estate and thus the court lacked authority to order an accounting.	The court affirmed: an accounting may be compelled where a relationship requires surrender of funds; POA status and control over funds supported the order.
2. Whether the court improperly relied on affidavits/declarations in a contested hearing	Friend relied on submitted declarations and records to prove control and receipts; court permissibly considered them when admitted without objection.	Duane contended the court abused discretion by basing findings on affidavits/declarations over his objection (statutory limits on affidavits in contested probate matters).	Forfeited on appeal: Duane did not object below; appellate court declined to consider the belated claim.
3. Whether denial of an evidentiary hearing was reversible error	Friend argued the court reasonably denied a hearing because Duane’s counsel made only vague promises and failed to specify issues, witnesses, or make an offer of proof.	Duane sought an evidentiary hearing to contest ownership, credibility, and accounting details, claiming need to testify and present evidence.	Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion where appellant failed to identify facts to be proved or make an adequate offer of proof.
4. Whether sanctions exceeded legal limits or violated court rules	Friend maintained sanctions were proper for violating the court’s express orders and payable to the conservatorship estate.	Duane argued sanctions were limited to $1,500 under CCP §177.5 and that rule 2.30 was violated.	Affirmed: sanctions were imposed under court’s inherent/probate authority payable to the estate (not CCP §177.5), and rule 2.30 did not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Christie v. Kimball, 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court has discretion to order an accounting)
Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (accounting may be compelled where a relationship obliges surrender of money/property)
Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Estate of Bennett, 163 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (limitations on use of affidavits in contested probate proceedings)
Estate of Fraysher, 47 Cal.2d 131 (Cal. 1956) (evidence admitted without objection can support court action)
Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 16 Cal.App.5th 1246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (sanctions greater than CCP §177.5 limit can be upheld where imposed under other authority)