Williams v. Williams
Filed 6/20/06 Williams v. Williams CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| SHERRY J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CURTIS L. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent. | B182981 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EAP22523) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Thomas W. Stoever, Judge. Affirmed.
Sherry J. Williams in pro per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
_______________
Sherry J. Williams appeals the trial court's January 24, 2005 grant of the petition for first and final account and report of temporary conservators and related orders with respect to the conservatorship of Maple Lee Willis, appellant's grandmother. Finding no error, we affirm the orders.
Curtis Williams, appellant's brother, and Robert Key were appointed temporary conservators of the person and estate of Maple Lee Willis on October 7, 2003. Mr. Piro from the Probate Volunteer Panel was appointed to represent Ms. Willis (Prob. Code, § 1470). On March 13, 2004, after the court issued a minute order appointing Messrs. Williams and Key the permanent conservators, but before the Letters of Appointment were issued, Ms. Willis passed away.
The conservators filed their first and final account and report of temporary conservators, petition for its settlement, reimbursement of funeral costs and for termination of the conservatorship on August 24, 2004. Appellant objected to the account and report, and petitioned for the removal of the conservators and for her appointment as successor conservator for her deceased grandmother, claiming the conservators were not taking proper care of the conservatee.
On January 24, 2005, the trial court denied appellant's petition for appointment as successor conservator, overruled appellant's objections to the final account and report, approved the final account, and directed the payment of the conservatee's funeral expenses as requested in the conservators' petition.
In this appeal, appellant asks this court to reverse the order denying her petition for appointment as successor conservator, to overturn the trial court's order overruling her objections to the final account and report, and to reverse the approval of the final account and report. She also challenges the lower court's issuance of a restraining order against her, and avers that the co-conservators embezzled conservatorship funds.
The trial court properly denied appellant's petition for appointment as successor conservator. When Ms. Willis passed away, the purpose of the conservatorship no longer existed. Although appellant may be correct in asserting that she would have been a better conservator for her grandmother, the purpose of the conservatorship expired with the death of the conservatee. That is to say, due to Ms. Willis's passing, there was no further need for a conservatorship of the person. Therefore, the trial court properly denied appellant's petition for appointment as successor conservator.
The first and final account and report of temporary conservators covers the period from October 7, 2003, when Mr. Williams and Mr. Key were appointed temporary conservators, through March 13, 2004, the date of Ms. Willis's death. Mr. Piro, Ms. Willis's PVP attorney, reports that during that period the conservators did not take possession of any estate assets; that Mr. Piro deposited into his client trust account a check in the amount of $4,824.33 from a closed bank account belonging to Ms. Willis; and that Mr. Williams incurred documented funeral expenses in the amount of $7,237.74. The court granted Mr. Piro permission to issue a check from his client's trust account in the amount of $4,824.33 to Mr. Williams for reimbursement of funeral expenses.
Among her objections to the first and final account, which the trial court overruled, appellant complains about the multiple medical facilities to which her grandmother was transferred during the time of the conservatorship, and notes, for example, that the conservatee's whereabouts on a single day, December 30, 2003, were unaccounted for. While appellant's concern for the quality of care her grandmother received is very understandable, the matters raised in her objections do not constitute legal grounds for denying the final account and report. Indeed, this court's reversal of the order approving the final account and report would not result in any benefit to Ms. Willis or to appellant. Consequently, the trial court's orders overruling the objections and approving the final account and report must be affirmed.
The death of the conservatee Ms. Willis resulted in the de facto extinguishment of the restraining order. Thus, even if, as appellant believes, the restraining order was improperly issued, since it no longer has any force or effect, this court cannot order any relief with respect to that order.
Finally, as stated above, the conservators never took possession of assets of the conservatee's estate. Ms. Willis's sole asset was the $4,824.33 in a bank account, which sum was paid to Mr. Williams partially to reimburse him for Ms. Willis's funeral expenses. Although appellant accuses the conservators of embezzlement, there was no opportunity for the conservators to embezzle conservatorship funds, nor is there any evidence of any such embezzlement.
In sum, appellant's brief reveals that she was genuinely concerned about the well-being of her grandmother, and believes that those entrusted with her care were not motivated by her best interests. We appreciate the very real frustration appellant experienced in the course of the Conservatorship, and especially her extreme dismay at the issuance of the restraining order which prevented her from visiting her beloved grandmother. As a practical matter, however, Ms. Willis's passing precludes a satisfying legal remedy. Accordingly, we must affirm.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
