In Re the Conservatorship of J.R., 2011 MT 62

J.R., aged 78, under a limited conservatorship due to memory issues and early Alzheimer's diagnosis, with assets including a Helena condo, a D.A. Davidson investment account, and a Mountain West Bank checking account.
Initial conservator Nickol faced family interference; Nickol requested withdrawal and was replaced by William Shevlin, a Helena CPA, in October 2007.
Court authorized Shevlin to act as conservator with broad powers, including selling the condo and paying for J.R.’s direct care, while restricting payments to family members for direct care.
During the conservatorship, Shevlin arranged condo sale and moved personal property to Massachusetts; ongoing family disputes persisted.
In June 2009, interested parties filed for sub-sequent orders seeking transfer to Massachusetts, trust creation, and recovery of fees; in April 2010, court removed Shevlin, appointed William as successor conservator, approved Shevlin’s accounts, and dismissed with prejudice J.R.’s negligence and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, awarding Shevlin’s attorney fees from the estate.
J.R. appeals challenging dismissal of claims, the district court’s management findings, the discharge of the conservator without liability, and attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.	J.R. contends no expert testimony needed.	Shevlin contends expert testimony necessary for special-skills standard.	No reversible error; expert testimony required only for special-skills breaches; record insufficient to prove breach of prudent-person standard.
Whether the district court erred in finding that Shevlin’s management was appropriate.	Shevlin failed to manage assets properly and court used wrong standard.	Shevlin acted in line with court orders and prudent-care standards.	District court’s finding of appropriate management affirmed.
Whether the district court erred in discharging the conservator without liability.	Removal implies bad conduct; should reimburse fees.	Removal due to lack of cooperation; fees reasonable.	Discharge without liability affirmed; fees deemed reasonable under statute.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering attorney’s fees payable from the conservatorship assets.	Fees should not be charged to conservatorship if caused by conservator’s conduct.	Fees incurred to protect the conservatorship were permissible.	No abuse of discretion; fees properly paid from estate under statute.

Carlson v. Morton, 229 Mont. 234, 745 P.2d 1133 (Mont. 1987) (special-skills standard; expert testimony often required for negligence in professional duties)
Redies v. Cosner, 2002 MT 86, 309 Mont. 315, 48 P.3d 697 (Mont. 2002) (trustee/conservator duties; special skills and prudent-person standard)
Romans v. Lusin, 2000 MT 84, 299 Mont. 182, 997 P.2d 114 (Mont. 2000) (Restatement and professional duties in care standards)
In re Guardianship of Saylor, 2005 MT 236, 328 Mont. 415, 121 P.3d 532 (Mont. 2005) (conservators under same duties as trustees; special-skills standard)