Foster v. Professional Guardian Services Corp.
258 P.3d 102
Alaska2011Background
- In 2002 the Alaska superior court appointed a professional conservator (PGSC) for Ann Davis, who had dementia.
- Davis's daughter Evelynn Foster and son William Bryant, serving as special advocates, clashed over PGSC's management of the conservatorship and Davis's property.
- PGSC prepared a plan of care and inventory within 90 days, but the inventory was limited to two vehicles and omitted small personal items; a more thorough inventory was not completed.
- Davis’s liquid assets were rapidly depleted; the house was eventually sold to fund care, and some household items were stored.
- Davis died in 2004; PGSC's final accounting was reviewed by the superior court, which approved it but acknowledged fiduciary concerns, and Foster challenged the fees and certain actions.
- The superior court ultimately upheld most of PGSC’s actions, approved attorney’s-fee reimbursement from the estate, and the case was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did PGSC's inventory and storage decisions breach fiduciary duties? | Foster argues cursory inventory and paid storage harmed the estate. | PGSC contends the inventory was reasonable given value, and storage was prudent due to family contention. | Remand for clarification of inconsistent findings on inventory and storage. |
| Did missed pension payments cause damages to the estate and how should they be valued? | PGSC’s delay caused large misallocation of pension funds to beneficiaries. | Damages must reflect actual estate impact; misallocation limited by probate rules. | Affirmed that damages were $1,323.91 to the estate; waiver of some probate-law arguments. |
| Was PGSC's sale of Davis's house to a third party proper under the estate plan and fiduciary duties? | House should have been offered to Sandra (Davis's granddaughter) per the estate plan. | AS 13.26.295 and related authorities did not require selling to Sandra under these circumstances. | Affirmed that sale to third party was reasonably conducted; no error in bypassing Sandra. |
| May PGSC recover attorney's fees from the estate under AS 13.26.230 if defense of its actions harmed the estate? | Fees defense for actions harming the estate should not be reimbursed from the estate. | AS 13.26.230 allows reasonable compensation from the estate for conservator fees; prevailing-party logic applies variably. | Remanded for new calculation under AS 13.26.230, deducting fees incurred defending harmful actions; rejected pure Rule 82 approach. |
| Did the superior court err in applying the sequential law framework (probate vs conservatorship) to the pension dispute and fees? | Pension matter is not probate law; fees should follow conservatorship standards. | Pension misdirection interacts with probate-type distributions; court had jurisdiction to address it. | Affirmed overall regarding pension and house; remanded for clarity on damages/fees and for re-calculation of fees under the proper standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.H., 987 P.2d 735 (Alaska 1999) (estate and conservatorship fee considerations)
- Jones v. Jones, 925 P.2d 1339 (Alaska 1996) (statutory fee decisions and reasonableness standards)
- Brandon v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269 (Alaska 2001) (procedural limits on raising issues on appeal)
- Nerox Power Sys., Inc. v. M-B Contracting Co., 54 P.3d 791 (Alaska 2002) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr., LLC v. Advanced Pain Ctrs. of Alaska, Inc., 218 P.3d 698 (Alaska 2009) (statutory interpretation and independent review of legal questions)
- DeNardo v. Cutler, 167 P.3d 674 (Alaska 2007) (abuse of discretion and standard-of-review principles)
- Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (Alaska 2005) (abuse-of-discretion and attorney's-fee standards)