Guardianship of Sage Micah Rain Davis et al

Case Number

22PR00629

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 09/16/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Annual Accounting and Report

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.  Sage Micah Rain Davis must personally appear.

The following is noted for the Court after review of the supplements filed on August 21 and 28, 2025:

Discrepancy no. 3 – The supplement calculations subtract money from using transfers to the ward’s account from the guardianship account, ignoring the fact that the money in the guardianship account belonged to the minor to begin with.  Therefore, 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, and is attempting to have the court credit transfers from the estate account to the minors in order to obfuscate the total.  The money in the guardianship estate account was either from the ward’s parent’s estate, or the ward’s Social Security payments, thus did not belong to the guardian, and should not be credited to her. 

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. Thus, thus the figures from the Living Wage index given to the Court by the guardian are not persuasive, because the guardian was receiving funds for the minor’s care, from the minor’s estate, and went far over budget.

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.  Petitioner admits this figure is over $8,000 higher than even the Living Wage calculation, and 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.  Because the explanation offered by the guardian is not persuasive, the Court should because the guardian was given a budget and warned overspending would result in surcharge for the last accounting, the Court should surcharge the guardian at least $8,000 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 – The account statements submitted in support of the accounting do not match the balances reported in the Summary of Account, thus to not support 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.)

For example, the reported beginning balance of the guardianship estate for the starting date of this accounting is $1,097.60.  No statement submitted shows that balance on that date. The Chase statements show a balance of $384.56 and $193.15 on March 1, 2024, and the Wells Fargo statements show a balance of $21.78 and $179.96 on that date (i.e. March 1, 2024). Totaled together, the sum of all accounts on March 1, 2024 was $779.25, which is over $300 short of the stated balances in the Summary of Account.

Reduction of Attorney’s fees.  It was initially recommended the Court should reduce the requested attorney’s fees by 30% (the difference in the community standard and value of work product) to $7,768.90.  However, the Second Supplement contains an agreement by the attorney for a reduction of fees to a total of $5,549.25.  The Court should accept this figure and order attorney’s fees of $5,549.25 be paid for the accounting period.

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