Conservatorship of A.B. - Case Brief

4 Mins read

Conservatorship of A.B.

Case Number: A160473

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-07-07

Case Brief – Conservatorship of A.B.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: A160473
Disposition: The order awarding compensation to the Public Guardian and County Counsel is reversed and remanded for reconsideration, with explicit instruction that the trial court must evaluate the conservatee’s financial circumstances in determining “just and reasonable” compensation.

Holding

The court held that, although the trial court possessed sufficient information to consider the statutory factors in Probate Code § 2942(b), it erred by failing to apply those factors and by improperly delegating to the public guardian the discretion to defer collection of fees based on a hardship determination; consequently, the compensation order was reversed and sent back for proper judicial analysis.

The California Court of Appeal has clarified the limits of a trial court’s discretion in ordering compensation for a public guardian, a decision that reverberates through the state’s conservatorship practice. At issue was the trial court’s approval of a petition by the Public Guardian of Contra Costa County and the county’s counsel for $1,569.79 in fees covering services rendered to A.B., a 40‑year‑old man with severe schizophrenia who subsists solely on a $973.40 monthly Social Security benefit and possesses no real property or significant assets.

A.B. appealed, arguing that the petition lacked the specificity required by Probate Code § 2942(b) to demonstrate that the requested fees were “just and reasonable.” He contended that the petition offered only vague descriptions of “visits,” “court matters,” and a single phone call, without dates, participants, or outcomes, and that the court’s order failed to consider his financial condition—an essential factor under the statute. Moreover, A.B. asserted that the trial court improperly delegated to the public guardian the authority to defer collection if it deemed payment would cause hardship, a power the statute reserves exclusively for the court.

The appellate panel affirmed that the petition did contain the statutory minimum: a total hour count and a dollar request well below the $150 per‑hour ceiling set by local rules. While more granular detail would be preferable, the court deemed the information sufficient to support a finding of reasonableness. However, the panel rebuked the trial court for not independently weighing the statutory factors—actual costs, size of the estate, special value of services, and potential economic hardship. The record plainly showed A.B.’s lack of assets and reliance on Social Security benefits, which are insulated from civil garnishment. The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s reliance on the public guardian’s self‑assessment of hardship amounted to an impermissible delegation of judicial discretion, contrary to the clear language of § 2942(b) and to precedent prohibiting courts from offloading factual determinations to non‑judicial actors (e.g., People v. Wilson).

Accordingly, the compensation order was reversed and remanded for a fresh hearing in which the trial court must itself evaluate A.B.’s financial circumstances and apply the full suite of statutory factors before deciding whether the fees are just and reasonable. The decision underscores that even modest fee requests must survive rigorous judicial scrutiny when the conservatee’s estate is minimal.

Impact and Unresolved Questions
The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s exclusive role in assessing hardship, signaling to public guardians that petitions must be accompanied by a detailed cost breakdown and a clear nexus between services rendered and the conservatee’s welfare. It also raises the question of how courts will handle future petitions where the public guardian’s services are largely “routine” but the conservatee’s estate is negligible. Practitioners should anticipate tighter evidentiary requirements and be prepared to articulate the necessity and benefit of each hour billed.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code § 2942(b) – Compensation for public guardian and attorney; factors for “just and reasonable” determination.
  • Probate Code § 2641 – General authority for conservators to seek compensation.
  • California Rules of Court, rule 7.756 – Non‑exclusive factors for conservator compensation.
  • People v. Wilson (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 264 – Prohibition on delegating judicial discretion to non‑court entities.
  • Conservatorship of Cornelius (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1198 – Good‑faith expenditure standard for compensation.
  • 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383, 405, 407 – Federal protections for Social Security benefits from attachment.