Conservatorship of Elaine Twitchell

Case Number

24PR00374

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 07/16/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Compliance Review Hearing

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Personal Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On August 22, 2024, this Court granted the conservator’s petition to establish this conservatorship, and ordered the conservator to file a bond. 

On August 26, 2024, this Court also issued a Conservatorship Compliance Order setting the following deadlines for the filing of the following documents:

September 21, 2024

Notice of Conservatee’s Rights (Form GC-341)

October 21, 2024

Determination of Conservatee’s Appropriate Level of Care (Form GC-355)

November 21, 2024

• Inventory and Appraisal (GC-040)
• Notice of How to Object to the Inventory and Appraised Value of Property (GC-042)
• Proof of recording Letters of Conservatorship

The first hearing to review compliance (i.e. the Conservatorship Compliance Hearing) was first held on January 8, 2025.  Attorney for conservator did not appear.  At that hearing, it was noted for the Court that the Determination of Conservatee’s Appropriate Level of Care (Form GC-355) was on file, but no other document had been filed.  That memorandum to the Court was posted early in the day on January 6, 2025, and the Notice of Conservatee’s Rights (Form GC-341) was filed that same day, thus was missing from the notation to the Court.  No sanctions were recommended, despite the outstanding documents not being filed, and the Notice of Conservatee’s Rights being filed four months late.

On February 5, 2025, a review hearing was held to review the Court Investigator’s report. Despite a direct requirement and posted probate notes to appear, attorney for conservator did not appear.  The Court was notified by the Court Investigator that when the Court Investigator interviewed the conservator on January 23, 2025, the conservator “was unaware that the Conservatorship was even granted yet.” (Ct. Inv.’s Rep., filed Jan. 24, 2025, at pp. 3-4.)

On the date of that interview, the Conservatorship had been granted five months earlier.  It was noted for the Court that it should be concerned with this fact, because code compliant accountings would be difficult to obtain if the attorney for conservator was unfamiliar with Probate Code requirements in conservatorship cases, which appeared to be the case from the late filings, and communication issues with the conservator.  At the hearing, Counsel for Conservatee also “presented her concern regarding the conservators not being aware of their appointments and their duties as conservators.” (Min. Order, filed Feb. 5, 2025.) 

The minute order also reflects: “The Court acknowledges and concurs with Ms. Faulks Matta’s concern and hereby orders Ms. Comstock to communicate to her clients their responsibilities and duties as conservators.”  (Ibid.)  Sanctions were not recommended to be issued, but it was recommended to the Court to give attorney for conservator a warning that sanctions will be issued for failure to meet statutory deadlines and reporting requirements.

On February 11, 2025, the Final Inventory and Appraisal (GC-040) and Notice of How to Object to the Inventory and Appraised Value of Property (GC-042), was filed.  Both filings were two months, and 3 weeks late. 

On March 7, 2025, the above late filings were followed by the first surety bond filing, marking over six months that the conservator had been appointed and gone unbonded.  That bond was rejected for not being signed by the principle, and not obligating the surety to the person for whose benefit the bond is given.  On the standard rejection letter used to reject bonds, the following was noted:

• “The bond is not signed by the principles. (CCP, §§ 995.310, 995.320, subd. (a).)”
• “The bond does not obligate the surety to the person for whose benefit the bond is given. (See Prob. Code, § 2320, subd. (b) [conservatorships and guardianships]; § 8480, subd. (b) [decedent’s estate]; see CCP, § 995.850.)”

These issues were noted because the bond had not been signed by the conservator, and obligated the surety to this Court, not the Conservatee.

On April 1, 2025, a second surety bond was filed. It was an almost identical copy of the first bond, but-for the following language inserted “The bond shall be for the benefit of the ward or conservatee and all persons interested in the guardianship or conservatorship estate and shall be conditioned upon the faithful execution of the duties of the office, according to law, by the guardian or conservator.”  This language directly conflicted with the language that “Principal and the Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara,” which directly preceded the paragraph where the conservator language had been inserted.  The bond was again rejected for the same two defects, because the new language created an ambiguity and the signature of the conservators was still missing. The reject letter was an exact duplicate of the first, with the dates changed.

The second hearing to review compliance with the Conservatorship Compliance Order was held on April 2, 2025. Attorney for Conservatee did not personally appear, but did appear via another attorney named Robert Armstrong.  It was recommended the Court issue an OSC re: Sanctions. 

The third hearing to review compliance was held on April 30, 2025. Robert Armstrong again appeared for attorney for conservator. Mr. Armstrong stated on the record that the bond was forthcoming and requested a continuance. It was recommended the Court issue an OSC re: Sanctions.

The fourth hearing to review compliance was held on May 28, 2025. Attorney for conservator did not personally appear, but a courtesy appearance was made on behalf of attorney for conservator.  The matter was continued due to a calendaring conflict of the attorney for the conservator.  A third surety bond was submitted on this date also. That bond was approved, marking over nine months since the conservatorship was granted, and the conservator was unbonded.

The fifth hearing to review compliance was held on June 11, 2025. Attorney for conservator personally appeared at the hearing. The Court noted the proof of recording Letters was still not on file, and reiterated sanctions were warranted.  The matter was continued to the current hearing date.

Since the fifth hearing, attorney for conservatee has field the following:

• Objection to Findings and Order After Hearing (June 16, 2025)
• Continued Case Management Statement and Attorney Declaration Regarding Inaccurate Statements at Case Management Conferences, Inaccurate Minute Orders, Lack of Notice, Unreliable Conduct by Research Attorney and Request for Hearing on Sanctions (July 9, 2025)
• Continued Case Management and Attorney Objections to Most Recent Probate Notes (July 9, 2025)

In addition to the above documents, the Proof of Recording Letters of Conservatorship was filed on June 26, 2025.  This filing is over seven months late.

In every posted probate note from the first hearing to the fifth, the following has been a notation:

PLEASE NOTE: Failure to submit the required documents listed in the previous Conservator Compliance Order is a breach of fiduciary duty as a conservator, and can result in removal as conservator and surcharge. (Prob. Code, § 2650(c).) If you are removed from office, a successor conservator will be appointed and will be entitled to collect fees. The death of the conservatee does not relieve a conservator of the duty to cure the deficiencies from the previous hearings.

In two of the recent filings by Ms. Comstock, it appears from the statements that Ms. Comstock believes 1) there has been no notice of sanctions, and due process was violated; and 2) the sanctions are issued as to Ms. Comstock, and not the conservator. Both presumptions are false.

Not only has the above note warned of removal and surcharge (both sanctions specific to conservators), but the Court need not even give such a warning when a court order is violated, as was here with the Conservatorship Compliance Order, and several orders from the bench at hearings:

(a) A guardian or conservator may be removed from office if the guardian or conservator is found in contempt for disobeying an order of the court.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a guardian or conservator may be removed from office under subdivision (a) by a court order reciting the facts and without further showing or notice.

(Prob. Code, §2655.)

Thus, Ms. Comstock was never under the threat of sanctions personally, nor was ever denied due process.

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