Summary
The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court's refusal to terminate S.H.'s conservatorship before distributing settlement funds from his litigation against Anchorage Refuse, Inc. The court held that the conservator's 1997 settlement was authorized and had been ratified by the court's prior decision, so no further hearing on termination was required before the litigation was dismissed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Weidner had authority to represent S.H. in the probate proceedings and appeal without approval from the conservator.
- Whether S.H.'s petition to terminate the conservatorship required a hearing and could invalidate the conservator's previously completed settlement of the ARI litigation.
- Whether the superior court properly entered the settlement, distributed the settlement funds, dismissed the ARI litigation, and terminated the conservatorship consistently with the supreme court's prior decision and remand.
Holdings
- Weidner was authorized to represent S.H. in the conservatorship proceedings, including the petition to terminate the conservatorship and the appeal, because the conservatorship order was limited to decisions in the ARI litigation and Alaska law entitled the prospective protected person to counsel in the conservatorship proceedings.
- The superior court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing that could undo the settlement because the conservator had entered into the settlement in 1997 before S.H. petitioned for termination, and the supreme court's prior decision had ratified the conservator's authority to settle.
Key quotations
“While Weidner could not take part in any aspect of the ARI litigation, he is properly representing S.H. in the probate proceedings, including S.H.'s petition to terminate the conservatorship and this appeal.” (54 P.3d at 784)
“However, as the settlement had been entered into in 1997, S.H.'s claim had already been disposed of by the conservator.” (54 P.3d at 784)
Factual background
S.H. brought litigation against Anchorage Refuse, Inc. and, during settlement negotiations, displayed behavior that led his attorneys and psychiatric experts to question his ability to make litigation-related decisions. The superior court appointed Paul Cossman as a special conservator for the ARI litigation, and Cossman accepted ARI's $500,000 settlement offer as being in S.H.'s best interests. The settlement funds were placed in the court registry while prior appellate issues were resolved. After the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the conservatorship and the conservator's settlement authority, S.H. sought termination of the conservatorship and invalidation of the settlement-related actions.
Procedural history
S.H. sued Anchorage Refuse, Inc. in 1995. In 1997 the superior court appointed a special conservator for purposes of the litigation, and the conservator accepted a $500,000 settlement. In In re S.H., 987 P.2d 735 (Alaska 1999), the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the conservatorship and the conservator's authority to settle, while remanding the issue of conservatorship costs. On remand, S.H. petitioned to set aside the conservatorship and void the conservator's decisions; the superior court denied the motion, approved distribution of the settlement funds, dismissed the underlying litigation, and terminated the conservatorship. S.H. appealed.