Category Archives: Conservator

September 26, 2017

Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover (or Fifty Ways to Plan, Administer and Litigate Estates)

by Carol Warnick

As the old song by Paul Simon contemplates, there are fifty ways to leave your lover, and there are also fifty ways to plan, administer and litigate estates and trusts.  I have recently become aware of various situations in which attorneys assume that because things are done a certain way in the state in which they practice, they are done the same way in other states.

I am licensed in three states, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and deal regularly with the significant differences between them.  For example, Colorado tends to use “by representation” in dealing with passing assets down the generations, but Utah and Wyoming both use “per stirpes.”  Read more >>

July 5, 2017

Electronic Wills

by Morgan Wiener

As regular readers of this blog know, one of our favorite topics is digital assets, including estate planning for digital assets.  Today, we’re taking a slightly different focus and discussing developments in digital estate planning, more commonly known as electronic wills.

One of the more recent developments in estate planning is the concept of electronic wills. In general, an electronic will is one that is signed and stored electronically. Instead of signing a hard copy document in ink, the testator electronically signs the will, and it is also signed by witnesses and notarized electronically.  Not surprisingly, companies like LegalZoom are very interested in this topic.

Read more >>

January 17, 2017

New Fiduciary Act Brings Both Progress and Uncertainty

by Matthew S. Skotak

You may have previously read on this blog about digital assets, the impact they have on the administration of trusts and estates, the need for fiduciaries to access digital assets, and the privacy concerns that come along with such access. In order to address these issues, Colorado recently enacted the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (“RUFADAA”). This new act became effective on August 10, 2016 and can be found at C.R.S. § 15-1-1501 et seq.

RUFADAA is a significant leap by the State of Colorado to catch up to the digital age.  Prior to the passage of the law, the pervasive use of electronic banking and investing has posed a problem for many fiduciaries. Without the receipt of paper statements, personal representatives, financial agents, trustees and conservators have had a difficult time locating an individual’s assets, sometimes leading to an exhaustive search of several banking and financial institutions before asserts are uncovered. Read more >>

December 19, 2016

Claims Challenging Estate Plans

by Rebecca Klock Schroer

We are seeing an increase in the number of lawsuits in which people are challenging or trying to circumvent estate plans.  The claims traditionally include lack of testamentary capacity and those involving improper actions by family members, agents under powers of attorney or conservators.

Testamentary Capacity

A challenge to an estate plan often involves a claim that the testator was not of sound mind. Under Colorado law, a sound mind includes the presence of the Cunningham factors and absence of an insane delusion that materially affected the testamentary instrument.  The Cunningham factors are as follows: the testator must (1) understand the nature of the act, (2) know the extent of his property, (3) understand the proposed testamentary disposition, (4) know the natural objects of his bounty, and (5) that the testamentary instrument represented his wishes.  Cunningham v. Stender, 255 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1953).

In addition to these factors, the testator cannot be suffering from an insane delusion.  An insane delusion exists if a person has a persistent belief, resulting from illness or disorder, in the existence or non-existence of something contrary to all evidence, which materially affects the disposition in the testamentary instrument.  Breeden v. Stone, 992 P.2d 1167 (Colo. 2000).  For example, failure to include a child in the will because the testator believes that child has been abducted by aliens and will never return to earth. Read more >>

April 25, 2016

Is Any Family at Risk for Competency Disputes?

by Matthew Skotak

Casey Kasem (famed American Top 40 DJ), Tom Benson (owner of the NBA’s Pelicans and NFL’s Saints), and Sumner Redstone (controlling shareholder of Viacom and CBS) have much in common: wealth, prestige, and status. Though many may envy their fortune and fame, they may not envy their other common thread; competency disputes.

When Casey Kasem’s health deteriorated from Parkinson’s disease, an ugly court battle ensued between his children and his wife, which did not end until he died. A challenge to Tom Benson’s competency arose after he decided to vest controlling interest in the Saints and Pelicans with his wife, and lock-out his other heirs from those teams. Similarly, Sumner Redstone’s competency was challenged by his longtime companion, Manuela Herzer, after she was removed as his health care agent and was kicked out of his California mansion. These conflicts are public and recognizable, however, thousands of similar anonymous disputes occur every day across the country involving ordinary families.

Read more >>

October 13, 2015

No Medical Evidence Required for Appointment of a Conservator

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

Imagine that you have just discovered that your father has received several unsolicited emails asking for money and that he has sent almost $500,000 to anonymous offshore bank accounts.  Worried for your father, you decide to seek a conservatorship to protect his assets. 

These are the facts that started the dispute resulting in a recent Colorado Court of Appeals case, In re Neher, 2015 COA 103 (July 30, 2015).

At the hearing, there was no medical evidence presented, but rather, expert testimony from a CPA.  The Court ruled in favor of son and his father appealed.  The father’s primary argument on appeal was that Colorado’s conservatorship statute requires medical evidence before a court can determine whether a conservator is necessary. 

Colorado’s conservatorship statute provides that a petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is unable to manage his property and business affairs because they cannot effectively receive and evaluate related information.  In addition, a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual has assets that will be wasted or dissipated unless management is provided and that protection is necessary.

The Court of Appeals denied the father’s appeal and held that medical evidence is not required evidence in a proceeding requesting appointment of a conservator.  The Court of Appeals considered the following in reaching the decision:

-The language of the statute does not expressly require expert testimony like other statutes in Colorado.

-The language of the statute does not require that a petitioner show the causes of the individual’s inability to effectively receive or evaluate information.

-The Court’s interpretation is consistent with other conservatorship statutes.

-To determine legislative intent, the Court compared the Colorado statute to the Uniform Probate Code and specifically identified that the Colorado statute did not contain the language “an impairment” like the Uniform Probate Code.

The Court of Appeals rejected the father’s arguments that the judicial department forms regarding the appointment of a conservator and the termination of a conservatorship contain references to a physician’s letter or professional evaluation.  The Court of Appeals also rejected the father’s out of state case citations as unpersuasive.

Litigation in the area of conservatorships is continuing to grow and this case provides important guidance for the interpretation of the Colorado standard for the appointment of a conservator.

July 21, 2015

Opposition to the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act

by Morgan Wiener

Despite the final version being passed by the Uniform Law Commission two years ago, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (“UFADAA”) has not yet enjoyed widespread passage by state legislatures.  According to the Uniform Law Commission, to date, UFADAA has only been enacted in one state – Delaware.  An additional 26 states introduced legislation to enact a version of UFADAA during the first half of this year, but none of those measures have been passed.  As tempting as it may be to lay the blame on the sluggish pace of the legislative process, it’s important to note that UFADAA also faces substantive resistance.

Although much of the commentary surrounding UFADAA, both on this blog and in the estate planning community at large, has been positive, industry and consumer groups have both opposed the act on privacy grounds.  For example, letters published by both Yahoo! and a coalition of civil liberties groups have raised concerns that the relatively unfettered access to digital assets allowed by UFADAA goes too far and does not do enough to protect the privacy interests of not only a decedent, but also those who communicated with a decedent during his lifetime.  These letters can be found here and here.  The Internet Coalition, a group that represents the interests of major e-commerce and social media companies, the State Privacy and Security Coalition, Inc., and NetChoice, a group whose goal is to promote e-commerce, have all also opposed UFADAA’s enactment in various states.

NetChoice has gone further than simply opposing UFADAA and has proposed its own alternative to UFADAA – the Privacy Expectation Afterlife and Choices Act (“PEAC”).  Rather than providing automatic access to a decedent’s digital assets, PEAC contemplates that the probate court will grant access only upon making certain findings and contains a number of provisions that appear designed to protect the holders of digital assets.  You can read the full text of PEAC here.

It will be interesting to see whether UFADAA gains more traction during the next legislative session or whether the opposition holds firm.  Watch this space for updates.

December 22, 2014

Updates on UFADAA

by Morgan Wiener

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (“UFADAA”) is the Uniform Law Commission’s answer to the relatively new issues caused by the proliferation of digital assets (online bank accounts, social media accounts, computer hard drives, email, online photos, etc). UFADAA provides solutions to questions involving how fiduciaries can gain access to digital assets, what access fiduciaries may have to digital assets, and what fiduciaries may properly do with digital assets.

UFADAA is a new uniform act, it was adopted in its final form by the Uniform Law Commission in July 2014. Delaware is the only state that has adopted UFADAA so far, and the act will be effective in that state on January 1, 2015. Florida has also introduced legislation to adopt UFADAA.

In Colorado, the Trust & Estate Section of the Colorado Bar Association has been considering UFADAA and revisions to UFADAA so that it will better conform to existing laws and work with this state’s current framework for governing fiduciaries, trusts, and estates. Just this past week, the Statutory Revisions Committee of the Trust & Estate Section approved its final comments and proposed revisions to UFADAA. You can view the version of UFADAA approved by the Statutory Revisions Committee here. Although there are still a number of steps that must be taken before any version of UFADAA is enacted in Colorado, this is certainly a step in the right direction!

October 7, 2014

The Fall of Colorado’s Same Sex Marriage Ban

By Kelly Cooper

Starting on Monday, marriage licenses were issued in Colorado to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

This change came because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear cases from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.  What do these five states have in common?  Each of them had banned same sex marriage and had those bans declared unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals. 

In refusing to hear these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld three U.S. Courts of Appeal’s decisions declaring the same sex marriage bans unconstitutional and making same sex marriages legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. 

The impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases has reached far beyond the borders of those five states.  This is because every state in the U.S. is subject to the decisions made by one U.S. Court of Appeals.  For example, Colorado is situated in the 10th Circuit and the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declared Utah’s ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.  Since Utah and Colorado are both bound by 10th Circuit’s decisions, it is likely that Colorado’s same sex marriage ban would also be declared unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit.  As a result, various county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Colorado.

Current status: There are 19 states that permit same sex marriages plus the District of Columbia.  Due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear these cases, five more states’ bans on same sex marriage will fall bringing the total number of states permitting same sex marriage to 24.  Due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, an additional six states’ same sex marriage bans are effectively overruled, including Colorado’s.  The other five states are Wyoming, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.  This will bring the total number of states allowing same sex marriage to 30.

 We can expect more developments and changes in this area in the near term, so stay tuned.

April 28, 2014

Should an undue influencer be responsible for paying the legal fees incurred to rectify the undue influence?

by Kelly Cooper

In a recent unpublished decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a niece who unduly influenced her uncle was not responsible for the payment of the uncle's legal fees, which were required to rectify the undue influence and return the property to the uncle.

Specifically, the niece was accused of unduly influencing her uncle to give her pieces of real estate during his life. A jury found that the niece did unduly influence her uncle and that she breached her fiduciary duty to her uncle. As a result, the court ordered that the real estate be transferred back to the uncle. In addition, the jury awarded $315,000 in legal fees against the niece to make the uncle whole.

On appeal, the niece argued that she should not be responsible for the payment of attorney's fees because Colorado follows the American rule that parties in a dispute must pay their own legal fees. The uncle, through his conservator, argued that an award of legal fees was appropriate in this case under the breach of fiduciary duty/trust exception to the American rule. This exception was first recognized by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 1982. See Heller v. First Nat'l Bank of Denver, 657 P.2d 992 (Colo. App. 1982). The Colorado Supreme Court recognized the exception in 1989. See Buder v. Satore, 774 P.2d 1383 (Colo. 1989).

Despite the recognition of this exception, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that the Colorado Supreme Court has cautioned it against liberally construing any of the exceptions to the American rule.

In finding that the exception did not apply to this case of undue influence, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the niece's breach of fiduciary duty did not closely resemble a breach of trust. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the niece breached her duty as an individual, rather than any fiduciary duty to manage property, and that abusing personal influence is not similar to mismanaging property as a fiduciary.

The citation for the case is: In the Interest of Phillip Delluomo, Protected Person, 2012CA2513.