Guardianship of Sage Micah Rain Davis et al

Case Number

22PR00629

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 08/26/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Annual Accounting and Report

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following must be corrected by properly filed document or supplement:

Discrepancy no. 1 – The summary of account does not comply with Probate Code section 2620(a), because it does not use Form GC-400(SUM) and does not contain all the information required by Probate Code section 1061 (See also CRC 7.575, subd. (d and e).)

Discrepancy no. 2 – Social Security payments for Sage seem to be accounted for incorrectly. Sage turned 18 on March 5, 2024, thus should not have received any SS payments during the accounting period, except maybe one.  Yet there are 5 SS payments for Sage reported, with dates that do align with a monthly payment. There is a payment in March 2024, then two payments in April and none until August, 2024, where there are two payments made. Supplement should explain this issue.

Discrepancy no. 3 – The guardian paid herself what appears to be $ 23,288.92 over the accounting period via a series of transfers from the minors’ accounts to her own account.  According to the Court order filed on January 13, 2025, the guardian was only authorized to pay herself $1,500 per month out of the guardianship account “as an allowance for the care of the minor, Shea Davis.” (Ord. of 1^st Accnt., filed Jan. 13, 2025, at p. 2.)  These funds were not only to pay the guardian for her services, but were to aid the guardian’s care of the minor.

Not only did the guardian go over budget by paying herself an average of $1,940.74 per month during the 12-month accounting period, but the guardian also allowed the minors to spend a total of $42,590, a monthly average of $3,549, during the same period on “living expenses” that amount to excessive eating out and shopping. Thus, the guardian allowed $5,489.91 per month to be spent providing for just two minors, which is 11 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED BY THE US DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE for children the age of the wards. (See https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/cnpp-costfood-3levelsTFP-june2025.pdf) 

Such spending does not appear to be in the best interests of the wards, and is a breach of fiduciary duty by the guardian.  The explanation at paragraphs 10-19 do not resolve this issue.  The guardian was warned this would result in surcharge for the last accounting, thus the Court should surcharge the guardian for this waste.

Breach of Fiduciary Duties. The relationship of guardian and ward is a fiduciary relationship that is governed by the law of trusts, except as provided in this division.  Thus, all trustee duties are applicable to guardians. (Prob. Code, § 2101.)  The following fiduciary duties appear to have been breached by the transactions listed beside them:

• Imprudent management. 
  • Excessive spending
  • Failure to preserve estate property (Prob. Code, §16006)

Failure to invest estate property, and make it productive. (Prob. Code §§16006–16007.)

Discrepancy no. 4 – There are no account statements supporting the balance reported to be on hand at beginning of account period (Prob. Code, §1061(a)(1), and the account statements for Shea do not support the balance on hand at end of account, nor are supported by schedule of detailed reconciliation.  (See Local Rule 1744.)

Attorney’s fees - There are no suspect billing entries in the billing statements of the attorney for the guardian. Although the fee request is high, there appears to have been much work necessary to help the guardian bring the last accounting into compliance, and educate the guardian on her fiduciary duties. 

HOWEVER, the rate charged for the fees is far higher than the legal rate charged in this community for equivalent value work.  The “partner” on this case charges $475 per hour, while the jr. associate charges $325, and the paralegal $250.  These fees should not only be cut due to the difference in the legal community, but the fees should be cut because the quality level of work product produced by the firm was not the highest and required many hours of court resources to manage.

THEREFORE, the Court should reduced by 30% (the difference in the community standard and value of work product) to $7,768.90.

Appearances:

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

Meeting ID: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334