Conservatorship of Farrant - Case Brief

7 Mins read

Conservatorship of Farrant

Case Number: B307338

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-08-02

Case Brief – Conservatorship of Farrant

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B307338
Disposition: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s orders requiring appellant Duane Farrant to pay $63,448.90 to the conservatorship estate, to surcharge his share of interpleaded proceeds by the same amount, and to remit $121,000 in sanctions; respondent Angelique Friend was awarded her costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering an accounting from Duane Farrant, in relying on affidavits and declarations, and in denying a requested evidentiary hearing; consequently, the trial court’s judgments of monetary liability, surcharge, and sanctions were affirmed.

Narrative

Lead – In a stark reminder that fiduciary duties survive the death of a power‑of‑attorney’s principal, the California Court of Appeal upheld a trial‑court order compelling a son‑in‑law to disgorge more than $60,000, to surrender his share of interpleaded sale proceeds, and to pay $121,000 in sanctions for repeatedly failing to produce a proper accounting of an elderly mother’s pension and rental income.

Procedural backdrop – Norma Farrant, born 1926, executed a durable power of attorney in 2008 that named her son‑in‑law, Duane Farrant, as attorney‑in‑fact, to become effective upon a finding of incapacity. After a 2015 Missouri order requiring him to account for a year’s transactions, Norma returned to California in 2016. In January 2017 Ventura County Superior Court appointed Angelique Friend as conservator of Norma’s person and estate. In November 2017 Norma’s daughter, Diana Farrant, filed a petition compelling Duane Farrant to account for all actions taken on Norma’s behalf from September 21 2014 onward. The trial court ordered a formal accounting, set a March 30 2018 deadline, and imposed escalating sanctions for non‑compliance.

Duane Farrant repeatedly missed deadlines, offered vague excuses, and finally filed a deficient accounting in May 2019 that omitted pension receipts and contained heavily redacted bank statements. Subsequent hearings revealed that he had received $35,656.76 of Norma’s pension and $50,575 of rental income, yet retained $22,782.86 of expenses attributable to Norma’s half‑interest. The court calculated a net deficiency of $63,448.90, ordered its payment to the conservatorship estate, and surcharged the same amount against his share of interpleaded proceeds from the sale of the Newbury Park property. Because the accounting was not filed until May 31 2019—121 days after the court’s final show‑cause order—the court imposed $1,000 per day sanctions, totaling $121,000, payable to the conservator.

Issues on appeal – Duane Farrant raised three questions: (1) whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order an accounting because he was not a fiduciary of the estate; (2) whether the court erred by basing its decision on affidavits and declarations in a contested proceeding; and (3) whether the denial of an evidentiary hearing violated his due‑process rights.

Court’s analysis –

  1. Fiduciary relationship – The appellate court reiterated that an accounting may be compelled whenever a “relationship exists that requires an accounting,” even absent a traditional fiduciary label. Citing Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, the court emphasized that possession of another’s money creates a duty to render an account. Duane Farrant’s own testimony that he controlled Norma’s pension checks and half of the rental income satisfied the statutory “special relationship” requirement. Moreover, Probate Code § 39 defines an “attorney‑in‑fact” under a power of attorney as a fiduciary. Because Norma’s 2008 durable power of attorney became effective after the June 2015 physician’s declaration of incapacity, Duane Farrant was, by statute, a fiduciary of the conservatee’s assets. The trial court’s inference that he was acting as attorney‑in‑fact was therefore reasonable.

  2. Use of affidavits – While California law limits affidavits in contested probate matters, the appellate court found that Duane Farrant forfeited the issue by failing to object at the hearing. Under Estate of Fraysher (1956) 47 Cal.2d 131, evidence admitted without timely objection is deemed waived and may be considered on appeal. Consequently, the trial court’s reliance on the physician’s affidavit and other declarations was proper.

  3. Denial of evidentiary hearing – The standard of review for a trial‑court’s discretion to grant or deny a hearing is abuse of discretion. The appellant’s brief offered no specific factual issues, witness list, or offer of proof; it merely asserted a desire “to be heard.” The appellate court, citing Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, held that without a concrete evidentiary roadmap, the trial court’s refusal was not arbitrary. Moreover, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice—no offer of proof was made, and the record shows that the accounting deficiencies were undisputed. Under York v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1178, lack of prejudice precludes reversal.

  4. Sanctions – The appellant argued that Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5 caps sanctions at $1,500. The court distinguished Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, noting that § 177.5 applies only to sanctions payable to the court for violations of procedural rules, not to monetary sanctions imposed to compensate a private party for contempt of a court order. The $1,000‑per‑day sanctions, directed to the conservatorship estate, therefore fell outside the § 177.5 ceiling.

  5. Rule 2.30 – The appellant’s claim that the sanctions violated California Rules of Court 2.30 was rejected because the rule sanctions violations of the Rules themselves, not of a trial‑court order. The sanctions here punished non‑compliance with a probate order, not a procedural rule breach.

Disposition – All appealed orders were affirmed, and the conservator was awarded her costs on appeal.

Impact and unresolved questions – This decision reinforces the broad reach of fiduciary duties under Probate Code § 39, confirming that an attorney‑in‑fact who controls a conservatee’s income must be subject to the same accounting and sanction regime as a court‑appointed conservator. Practitioners should note the court’s willingness to impose steep daily sanctions when a fiduciary repeatedly ignores accounting orders, even when the sanctions are directed to the estate rather than the court. The ruling also clarifies that failure to object to the admission of affidavits waives any later challenge, underscoring the importance of timely objections in contested probate hearings.

Unresolved issues remain regarding the precise scope of “reasonable” sanctions in probate contexts. While the appellate court upheld a $1,000‑per‑day rate, it did not delineate a ceiling, leaving lower courts some discretion. Future litigation may test the boundary between punitive sanctions and compensatory awards, especially where the underlying misconduct is financial misappropriation versus mere procedural delay.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code § 39 – Definition of “fiduciary” (includes attorney‑in‑fact under a power of attorney).
  • Probate Code § 1022 – Limitations on the use of affidavits in contested probate proceedings.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5 – Cap on court‑payable sanctions ($1,500).
  • California Rules of Court, rule 2.30 – Sanctions for violations of the Rules.

Key Cases Cited

  • Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156 – Accounting may be compelled without a fiduciary relationship if a special relationship exists.
  • Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 – Trial‑court discretion in ordering an accounting.
  • Esslinger v. Cummins (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 517 – Abuse of discretion standard.
  • Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 – Definition of abuse of discretion.
  • Estate of Bennett (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1303 – Use of affidavits in probate.
  • Estate of Fraysher (1956) 47 Cal.2d 131 – Waiver of evidentiary objections.
  • Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667 – Review of denial of evidentiary hearing.
  • York v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1178 – Prejudice requirement for reversal.
  • Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246 – Sanctions exceeding statutory caps when directed to a private party.