Conservatorship of Annette Rubalcaba

Case Number

22PR00163

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/11/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Annual Accounting and Report

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. After a Second Amended Accounting, supplement, and a corrected Final Inventory and Appraisal, the following is noted for the Court:

Discrepancy no. 1 –  Conservator fees are still being paid without prior court approval.  This Court only authorized $3,000 per month in caregiving services to Isabel Cadena and none other. Despite this order, several thousand dollars have been paid to Aldo Quintana and Victoria Steele without court approval, and without billing statements outlining the hours served.

A conservator may not be paid by the conservatorship estate for services provided to the conservatee outside of court authorized conservator fees at the time of accounting.  When a conservator pays themself for services to the conservatee, it is a conflict of interest and a breach of fiduciary duty. (Prob. Code, § 2101 [“The relationship of guardian and ward and of conservator and conservatee is a fiduciary relationship that is governed by the law of trusts…”].)  Thus, all trustee duties are applicable to conservators, which includes a duty to avoid self-dealing and conflicts of interest. Judging from prior approvals of accountings by the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Court approved conservator fees in the amount of $3,000 a month to the conservator for the work performed for the conservatorship.  This is not to be accounted for as “caregiving” and should be accounted for as “conservator fees” in the future. 

It is recommended the Court require detailed billing statements from all persons providing caregiving to the conservatee to determine if the services provided are overlapping and/or necessary.  It is also noted that the services provided could be provided at little to no cost by Tri-Counties Regional Center.

At minimum, the Court should order the conservator to track all caregiving time spent on conservatee, and submit billing statements complying with Chapter 16 of the California Rules of Court, especially Rule 7.756.  It is recommended the Court reduce the amount per month paid to the conservatee to compel compliance.

Discrepancy no. 2 – Schedule C is not segregated into categories then listed in chronological order.  (See Fiduciary Accounting Handbook (Cont. Ed. Of the Bar 2022) §8.8 [“As with receipts, disbursements should be listed categorically, then chronologically within each category.”].)  The Court is not expected to make sense out of scattered lists of transactions.

Discrepancy no. 3 – Reimbursement for Insurance includes amounts paid on policy that includes vehicles that do not belong to or benefit the conservatee. Petitioner submitted a Farmers Insurance statement showing 4 vehicles on the policy, 3 of which are not the estate’s and do not benefit the conservatee. Petitioner should be ordered to return the amounts that apply to all vehicles to the three vehicles that are not the van used by the consevatee.

Bond - Sufficiency of the bond was addressed (See Local Rule 1742 (a) & (b)),  but the request to lower bond should be denied.  Bond should be set at $240,399. (Prob C §2320(c); Cal Rules of Ct 7.204(c).)

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305