Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court reviews a superior court’s refusal to terminate a special conservatorship and to void a conservator’s settlement of litigation. The court holds that its prior decision upholding the conservatorship and the conservator’s settlement authority controlled, because the settlement was entered before the petition to terminate the conservatorship. The court also concludes that the conservatee’s counsel was authorized to represent him in the probate proceedings and affirms the superior court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Weidner had authority to represent S.H. in the conservatorship proceedings and appeal without approval from the conservator.
- Whether the prior decision in In re S.H., 987 P.2d 735 (Alaska 1999), controlled the validity of the conservator's settlement and the superior court's distribution of the settlement funds.
- Whether the superior court erred by failing to hold a hearing on S.H.'s petition to terminate the conservatorship after the settlement had already been entered into and ratified.
Holdings
- Weidner was authorized to represent S.H. in the probate proceedings, including the petition to terminate the conservatorship and the appeal, because the conservatorship order limited the conservator's authority to decisions concerning the Anchorage Refuse litigation and Alaska law gave S.H. a right to counsel in the conservatorship proceedings.
- The prior decision controlled and ratified the conservator's authority to enter into the Anchorage Refuse settlement; because the settlement was entered into in 1997 before S.H. petitioned to terminate the conservatorship, the superior court properly distributed the settlement funds and dismissed the litigation.
- The superior court did not err by failing to hold a hearing on the petition to terminate the conservatorship because the conservator had already settled S.H.'s claims before the petition was filed and the prior appellate decision had ratified the settlement.
Key quotations
“Because the conservator entered into the settlement in 1997 and our decision in S.H. I was a ratification of that settlement, we affirm the superior court's entry of settlement and dismissal of the litigation.” (54 P.3d at 780)
“Because S.H.'s claims were settled by the conservator in 1997 prior to his petition for termination, the superior court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on S.H.'s petition.” (54 P.3d at 784)
Factual background
S.H. sued Anchorage Refuse, Inc. and developed increasingly irrational, paranoid, and obsessive behavior concerning the litigation. Several psychiatric experts concluded that he had a mental impairment that sometimes prevented rational decision-making. A special conservator was appointed for the litigation, approved Anchorage Refuse's $500,000 settlement offer, and deposited the settlement funds in the court registry pending appellate proceedings.
Procedural history
A superior court appointed a special conservator for S.H. in 1997 for purposes of litigation against Anchorage Refuse, Inc., and the conservator approved a $500,000 settlement. In a prior appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the conservator's authority to settle the litigation and remanded only the issue of conservatorship costs. On remand, S.H. petitioned to terminate the conservatorship and objected to distribution of the settlement funds; the superior court denied his motion, reaffirmed the conservator's settlement authority, distributed the funds, and terminated the conservatorship. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.