356 P.3d 474
Mont.2015Background
- A.M.M., born 1922, developed Alzheimer’s-type dementia; a psychological evaluation (Dec. 13, 2013) found she lacked capacity and could not manage probate matters for her late husband’s estate.
- Timothy (one of eight children) petitioned for guardianship/conservatorship (Jan. 2014); other siblings filed competing petitions; court consolidated matters and appointed temporary guardian/conservator and the Office of the Public Defender to represent A.M.M.
- March 14, 2014: District Court found A.M.M. incapacitated, appointed Casey Emerson guardian and Paul Jr., Timothy, and attorney Douglas Wold as joint conservators, with conservator actions requiring a majority vote.
- Timothy (pro se) moved to vacate the March 14 order, filed late procedural documents (reply brief service dispute), and contested conservators’ corporate authority; Wold sought and was awarded attorney fees; Timothy was sanctioned under Rule 11 and ordered personally to pay certain attorneys’ fees.
- District Court limited conservators from acting in A.M.M.’s elected corporate director/signatory roles and awarded reasonable fees to Wold and Emerson; Timothy appealed multiple rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Timothy) | Defendant's Argument (District Court/Wold/Emerson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of motion to vacate (new trial / Rule 59/60) | Proceedings had irregularities, due-process violations, improper appointments, and statutory errors requiring new trial. | No procedural irregularity established; issues (some) untimely; A.M.M. was represented; factual findings supported by evidence. | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; grounds for new trial not met. |
| 2. Striking of reply brief for untimely service | Reply filed May 19 (per certificate); court wrongly struck it. | Postmark showed service May 21; untimely under local rule and M.R. Civ. P.; strike appropriate. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in striking untimely reply. |
| 3. Conservators’ authority to act as corporate director/signatory | Conservators may continue/participate in business (§ 72-5-427(3)(c)) and court/ conservators have broad powers to manage estate and act in place of incapacitated person. | Conservators cannot assume elected corporate positions or signatory authority for corporations; that authority is distinct from managing the protected person’s personal estate. | Affirmed: court permissibly limited conservators; they cannot act as A.M.M.’s corporate director/signatory without appropriate corporate action. |
| 4. Award of attorney fees to conservator Wold | Wold was not a hired attorney and fees are unwarranted/excessive. | Court-appointed conservator with legal skill may perform legal work; statutes allow compensation and payment from estate; fees were reasonable under Swenson factors. | Affirmed: fees awarded and supported by evidence; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| 5. Rule 11 sanction — Timothy personally to pay some attorneys’ fees (Emerson/Wold) | Fees/sanctions unjust; estate should not pay; objections had merit. | Timothy’s filings were baseless and filed for improper purpose; breached fiduciary duty as conservator; Rule 11 sanction appropriate and tailored. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in imposing sanctions and ordering Timothy to personally pay reasonable fees. |
| 6. Alleged professional-conduct violations by Wold | Timothy alleges breaches of Montana Rules of Professional Conduct. | Such claims were not raised below to show prejudice; disciplinary forum (Office of Disciplinary Counsel) is the proper venue. | Affirmed: misconduct claims not properly before court and not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.R., 360 Mont. 30, 252 P.3d 163 (standard for reviewing conservatorship orders and attorney-fee review)
- Redies v. Cosner, 309 Mont. 315, 48 P.3d 697 (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
- In re J.A.L., 376 Mont. 18, 329 P.3d 1273 (abuse-of-discretion review of guardian/conservator selection)
- In re Marriage of Hardin, 343 Mont. 254, 184 P.3d 1012 (withdrawing counsel shortly before trial and notice/continuance implications)
- Quantum Elec. v. Schaeffer, 314 Mont. 193, 64 P.3d 1026 (notice requirements when counsel withdraws)
- Swenson v. Janke, 274 Mont. 354, 908 P.2d 678 (factors for determining reasonableness of attorney fees)