Conservatorship of Braunersrither
Filed 3/12/07 Conservatorship of Braunersrither CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re Conservatorship of the Person and
Estate of JOAN BRAUNERSRITHER.
CHERYL SMITH, H029274
Petitioner and Respondent, (Santa Clara County
v. No. 1-05 PR157013)
Objector and Appellant.
Appellant Lana Hescock appeals from the probate courts order terminating her appointment as the temporary conservator of the person and estate of her mother Joan Braunersrither and dismissing her conservatorship petition and from the courts order denying her motion for reconsideration. We reject her contentions and affirm the courts orders.
On June 21, 2005, Lana Hescock filed a petition seeking to be appointed the probate conservator of the person and estate of her mother Joan Braunersrither. Hescock alleged that Braunersrither was a resident of Santa Clara County who lacked the capacity to give consent for medical treatment and was unable to manage her personal needs and financial resources. A hearing on her petition was scheduled for August 23, 2005.
On June 22, 2005, Hescock filed a petition to be appointed temporary conservator of Braunersrither pending the hearing on her conservatorship petition. Hescock provided a Sunnyvale address for Braunersrither and asked the court to dispense with notice to Braunersrither. Hescock acknowledged that she had been unable to contact or locate Braunersrither for several weeks. A hearing on this petition was scheduled for June 28, 2005. Notice of this hearing was mailed to Braunersrither at the Sunnyvale address and attached to the door at that address, even though neither Hescock nor her boyfriend had been able to find Braunersrither there.
Braunersrither did not appear at the June 28, 2005 hearing, and the court issued an order appointing Hescock as the temporary conservator of Braunersrither. The temporary conservatorship order stated that it would expire on August 23, 2005.
On July 19, 2005, objector Cheryl Smith, another of Braunersrithers daughters, filed an ex parte petition to terminate the temporary conservatorship and dismiss Hescocks conservatorship petition. Smith produced evidence that, on June 30, 2005, Hescock contacted the Washington state facility where Braunersrither had been living since June 1, 2005 to assert her legal authority over Braunersrither. On July 8, 2005, Hescock essentially abducted Braunersrither from the Washington state facility and brought Braunersrither to Hescocks California home, against medical advice. Braunersrither submitted a declaration in support of Smiths petition declaring her desire to return to Washington. Smith declared that she had informed Hescock on July 17, 2005 of the scheduled July 19, 2005 hearing.
At the July 19 hearing, the court granted Smiths petition, terminated the temporary conservatorship and dismissed Hescocks petition due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Hescock moved ex parte for reconsideration. She declared that all communication between her and Braunersrither had been completely severed on July 1, 2005. She asserted that she had not received any advance notice of the July 19, 2005 hearing, but she admitted that, shortly after the hearing, she had retrieved both a telephone message and an email (sent the day before the hearing) apprising her of the hearing. Hescocks ex parte motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hescock filed a notice of appeal from the courts ruling granting Smiths petition and its order denying her motion for reconsideration.
Hescock claims on appeal that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to terminate the temporary conservatorship at the ex parte hearing. This contention is moot because the temporary conservatorship would have expired more than a year ago, and Hescock could not possibly obtain any meaningful relief on appeal. Indeed, the sole relief that Hescock seeks is reinstatement of conservatorship, a remedy that is singularly unavailable in this appeal.
Hescock argues the merits of her conservatorship petition, but this is not a basis for an attack on the probate courts orders. The court did not terminate or dismiss based on the merits; its orders were based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hescock does not challenge the courts subject matter jurisdiction finding.
Hescock contends that the probate court erred in failing to make findings or issue a statement of decision. The courts orders properly explained the basis for the courts decision: lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The probate courts orders are affirmed.
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.