Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court order appointing Barbara Farmer as Robert Farmer's partial limited conservator. The court held that substantial evidence supported findings that Robert was unable to manage his property and affairs effectively and that his property required protection under AS 13.26.165(2). The court also concluded that the limited protective order, including authority to market the home and arrange substitute housing, was not an abuse of discretion under the least-restrictive-alternative requirement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the finding under AS 13.26.165(2)(A) that Robert was unable to manage his property and affairs effectively.
- Whether the superior court made or adopted the finding required by AS 13.26.165(2)(B) that Robert's property would be wasted or dissipated without proper management, or that protection was necessary to obtain or provide funds for his support and care.
- Whether the conservatorship order complied with AS 13.26.195(d)'s requirement that a conservator be appointed only when a less restrictive protective order or special conservator would be inadequate.
Holdings
- The superior court's finding that Robert was unable to manage his property and affairs effectively was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Financial mismanagement, neglect of routine financial obligations, fixation on litigation, alcohol abuse, and related conduct could be considered collectively as evidence of incapacity; chronic intoxication was not required as an independent or exclusive basis for appointment.
- The superior court did not err by failing to make an express finding in the precise statutory language of AS 13.26.165(2)(B). The probate master's findings, adopted by the superior court, implicitly established that Robert's residence or its sale proceeds would be wasted or dissipated without proper management. Failure to make an express subsection (2)(B) finding does not require automatic reversal and is reviewed for harmlessness.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing Barbara to arrange substitute housing, requiring Robert to vacate the home, and permitting management of the sale proceeds. The limited conservatorship was adequately tailored to protect Robert's estate and was justified by evidence that Robert interfered with efforts to market the home and could not reliably manage his financial obligations.
Key quotations
“We review the appointment of a limited guardian or conservator for abuse of discretion.” (226 P.3d at 1034)
“We therefore reject Robert's argument that the court failed to make the finding required by AS 13.26.165(2)(B).” (226 P.3d at 1037)
Factual background
Robert Farmer had unstable employment, fell behind on mortgage and utility payments, exhausted retirement funds, and faced foreclosure of his home. Evidence showed that he spent money on lawsuits, alcohol, tobacco, electronics, and home-improvement projects while failing to attend to important financial obligations. After a probate master and the superior court found that Robert was unable to manage important financial matters and that his home and sale proceeds required protection, the court appointed Barbara as a partial limited conservator and authorized her to market the home, arrange substitute housing, and manage the proceeds.
Procedural history
A probate master initially appointed a temporary limited conservator after finding that Robert was unable to manage his property and affairs effectively and that his home was at risk of waste or dissipation. Upon review, the probate master recommended appointing Barbara as partial limited conservator with authority to repair and market the home, arrange substitute housing, and manage sale proceeds. The superior court conducted a de novo hearing, adopted the master's findings and recommendations with a modified move-out date, and Robert appealed.