Parker v. Schwarcz - Case Brief

Parker v. Schwarcz - Case Brief

Parker v. Schwarcz

Case Number: A165163

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2022-10-20

Case Brief – Parker v. Schwarcz

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-02
Case Number: A165163
Disposition: The appellate court affirmed the probate court’s order denying the petition and awarded each party its own costs.

Holding

The court held that Probate Code section 850 does not authorize a petition seeking the return of a conservator’s communications and documents, because such materials are not “personal property” within the statutory scheme, and the petition therefore fails as a matter of law; the trial court’s denial of both the section 850 petition and the related declaratory‑relief claim was affirmed.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that narrows the reach of Probate Code section 850, the California Court of Appeal rejected a former conservatee’s attempt to compel a professional fiduciary to turn over the conservator’s internal communications and records, holding that the statute is limited to disputes over tangible estate assets and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary discovery.

Procedural backdrop – In March 2021, Cynthia Parker’s daughters petitioned the Marin County Superior Court for both a general conservatorship of their mother’s person and estate and a temporary conservatorship to protect Parker’s assets. The court appointed Kim Schwarcz, a professional fiduciary, as temporary conservator of the estate. After a series of hearings, the parties entered a settlement in September 2021 that created an irrevocable trust administered by Guardianship Services of Seattle (GSS). The settlement required Schwarcz to fund the trust with all non‑retirement‑account assets held in her possession as temporary conservator. The trial court approved the settlement and terminated the temporary conservatorship in November 2021.

Two months later Parker’s counsel demanded that Schwarcz produce “all communications between Ms. Schwarcz and anyone regarding [Parker’s] estate,” including emails, medical records, and financial documents. Schwarcz’s counsel refused. In February 2022 Parker filed a combined “Petition for Return of Property; for Declaratory Relief” in the probate court. The petition invoked Probate Code section 850, seeking an order compelling Schwarcz to transfer the requested communications and, alternatively, to transfer them to GSS. The petition also asked the court to declare whether Parker or GSS was entitled to the documents.

At a hearing, the trial court denied the petition, stating that section 850 “does not authorize a petition under these circumstances” because there was no conservatee and no personal property “potentially belonging” to Parker. The court suggested that Parker could pursue the same information through ordinary discovery. The declaratory‑relief request was not addressed in the written order. Parker appealed.

Issues presented – (1) Whether section 850, subdivision (a)(1)(C), authorizes a petition to recover a conservator’s communications and documents as “personal property” belonging to the estate; (2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant declaratory relief on the same subject.

Statutory framework – Section 850 permits a “guardian, conservator, or any claimant” to file a petition when (A) a conservatee is bound by a written contract, (B) a minor succeeds to such a contract, (C) the conservator holds title to real or personal property claimed by another, or (D) the conservatee has a claim to property held by another. The operative language limits the petition to “real or personal property” disputes, not to documentary evidence of administration.

Court’s analysis

Statutory construction – The appellate court began with a plain‑text reading. The statute repeatedly references “real or personal property” and “title” rather than “documents” or “communications.” The court noted that California courts have long treated “personal property” under the Probate Code as assets that have a marketable value or that can be transferred, citing Estate of Dodge (1971) 6 Cal.3d 311, which distinguishes between the civil‑code definition of personal property and the narrower, “popular‑sense” meaning that excludes intangible records unless they constitute an asset.

Legislative history – The court examined the evolution from the pre‑2002 provisions (sections 2520‑2529 and 9860) that were expressly designed to allow probate courts to adjudicate “title to property” disputes and to prevent “looting” of estates. The legislative intent, as reflected in the 1972 amendment to section 851.5 and the 2001 recodification, was to give courts a mechanism for recovering assets that belong to an estate but have been improperly transferred or withheld. No legislative history suggested that the statute was meant to serve as a discovery tool for fiduciary records.

Precedent on the scope of section 850 – The court surveyed cases such as Myers (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 434 and Kraus (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103, where petitioners sought recovery of money, real estate, or other tangible assets. In each case, the court treated the petition as a claim to “property” that could be conveyed, not as a request for documentary evidence. The appellate court distinguished those holdings from Parker’s request, emphasizing that the communications she sought were not assets with title or market value, but rather records of the fiduciary’s administration.

Application to Parker – The court concluded that Parker’s petition “does not fit within any of the four enumerated categories” of section 850. The requested communications are not “real or personal property” held by the conservator; they are not subject to a claim of ownership, nor do they represent a “conveyance” that can be enforced. Accordingly, the petition is a procedural misstep, better suited to a discovery motion in a subsequent accounting proceeding.

Declaratory‑relief claim – The appellate court applied the two‑prong test for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1060‑1061. First, it found no “actual controversy” because Parker’s claim was wholly derivative of the failed section 850 petition. Second, even assuming ripeness, the request was “overly broad” and essentially a discovery demand, which the trial court had already indicated was inappropriate in this context. Because Parker raised no independent arguments on the record, the appellate court deemed the declaratory‑relief claim forfeited and affirmed the trial court’s refusal to grant it.

Disposition – The appellate court affirmed the probate court’s order denying both the section 850 petition and the declaratory‑relief request, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Implications for practice – This decision clarifies that section 850 cannot be weaponized to obtain a conservator’s internal records. Practitioners must rely on the traditional discovery mechanisms—motions to compel, subpoenas, or accounting proceedings—when seeking fiduciary documents. The ruling also underscores the importance of raising all procedural and substantive arguments at the trial‑court level; appellate courts will not entertain forfeited claims, especially in declaratory‑relief contexts where the underlying petition has failed.

Unresolved questions – While the court declined to address the merits of any privilege or confidentiality issues surrounding the requested documents, the decision leaves open how a successor fiduciary may compel production of predecessor records in a formal accounting. Future litigation may need to delineate the boundary between “property” that can be recovered under section 850 and “information” that must be obtained through discovery, possibly prompting legislative clarification.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code § 850 (Petitions for return of property) – subdivisions (a)(1)(A)‑(D).
  • Probate Code §§ 851.5, 9860 (predecessor statutes).
  • Civil Code § 663 (definition of personal property).
  • Civil Code § 14 (definition of personal property).
  • Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1060‑1061 (declaratory relief).
  • Doctrine of statutory construction – textual, legislative‑history, and purposive analysis.
  • Forfeiture of issues – Kern County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Camacho (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1028.
  • Discovery vs. property‑recovery distinction – Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 143.
  • Precedent on section 850 scope – Myers (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 434; Kraus (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103; Estate of Dodge (1971) 6 Cal.3d 311.
  • Successor‑fiduciary access to predecessor records – Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124; Fiduciary Trust Internat. of California v. Klein (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1184; Stine v. Dell’Osso (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 834.

Last updated September 05, 2025.