In Re G.O.
2016 MT 298N
| Mont. | 2016Background
- G.O., suffering cancer and diminished capacity, became subject to a conservatorship after an emergency petition by his wife Lisa on April 19, 2012; Lisa was appointed conservator.
- On June 27, 2012, the District Court modified the transfer-on-death (TOD) beneficiary designations on five of G.O.’s investment accounts, making Lisa beneficiary on those accounts.
- G.O. died March 3, 2013. His brothers Doug and Bruce (Appellants) had been named TOD beneficiaries on three of the five accounts before the June 2012 modification.
- Appellants appealed the District Court’s findings, conclusions, and order to pay costs and disburse conservatorship assets, arguing (1) the TOD beneficiary changes were improper and (2) the court lacked evidence for first-month conservatorship expenses.
- The District Court relied on joint-account bank statements to establish conservatorship expenses for the first month; it found Lisa (a joint-account co-owner) took funds but owed no fiduciary duty for joint-account use.
- The Supreme Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming the District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Appellee's (Lisa's) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doug and Bruce can challenge the June 2012 modification of TOD beneficiaries | The TOD changes were improper and should be set aside | The modification was ordered by the District Court while G.O. was alive; appellees defend order | Appellants lack standing to challenge TOD changes made while the account holder was alive; court did not reach merits |
| Whether the District Court lacked evidence to establish first-month conservatorship expenses | Bank statements and findings were insufficient to show expenses | Bank statements from G.O. and Lisa’s joint account are credible evidence; Lisa as co-owner owed no fiduciary duty for joint funds | District Court’s findings were supported by credible evidence and are not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Anderson, 218 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2009) (TOD designation gives no present property interest and non-beneficiaries lack standing to challenge removals before account holder’s death)
- Roland v. Davis, 302 P.3d 91 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review: findings of fact reviewed for clear error)