Conservatorships or guardianships are becoming increasingly common in estate management circles. The average person knows little about these probate instruments. While EstateofDenial.com will always concede that some guardianships are necessary, even helpful in certain cases, another element exists within the probate industry in which conservators are found enriching themselves at the expense of their wards. Modern technology allows longer lifespans. While this seems a great thing, longevity can also be accompanied by diminished mental capacity making an understanding of conservatorships/guardianships all the more important. Many families drawn into these situations often comment “if only I knew then what I know now.”
Conservators, or guardians as they are called in many states, hold positions of great power – power that can be used for good or bad. They can confiscate a person’s assets. They can remove an individual’s personal liberty. These positions (or the threat thereof) can also be used to influence the behaviors of a prospective ward or his/her family. Unscrupulous lawyers have “weaponized” our legal system to the detriment of average Americans and conservatorships/guardianships are sometimes used as an important component of that arsenal.
We’ve recently been talking about the Rondos and Farash guardianship cases in New York. A controversial conservator out of California may soon be out of business and her company’s story also provides important insight.
Regardless of what the fruitcakes say, she is still highly regarded in her field.
That statement is from David Horspool, the long-time attorney of California conservator Melodie Scott. Upon the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau determining that Scott knowingly made a false statement with regard to her professional fiduciary license renewal, she is now awaiting a March hearing to appeal the ruling.
Scott’s company, Conservatorship & Resources for the Elderly Inc., has been the subject of complaints lodged on various fronts. Janet Phelan wrote a series of articles called The Probate Murders which are posted here at EstateofDenial.com. This series is perhaps a contributing motivation for the “fruitcakes” comment, but as we always say, unflattering doesn’t mean untrue.
Horspool’s quote is reminiscent of comments published in a 2008 National Guardianship Association report which was critical of guardianship abuse advocates and described them as “disaffected family members.” Regardless, actions do speak louder than words and if, when given a chance to publically defend his client, David Horspool prefers name calling opposed to substantive discussions of questionable conduct, then that action indeed says a lot.
California enacted legislation requiring conservators, as of January 1, 2009, to be licensed professional fiduciaries. This is the issue with Melodie Scott. While the law sounds like a good effort, a read of the rules quickly shows loophole opportunities that prompt concern of this being perhaps more a “feel good” than “do good” proposition. We are, however, pleased to hear of the Scott case as it indicates the state exercising some enforcement oversight. With California’s critical financial issues, concern exists that this could be seen as a prime area for cutbacks.
EoD has been contacted by parties concerned that some conservators/guardians requiring this license are not in compliance and that the state is doing little to uphold the law. Perhaps visibility with the Scott case will open the door to more exposure and productive vigilance with regard to conservator abuse.
Meanwhile, we encourage people to learn more about conservatorship/guardianship in your own state.
Forewarned is forearmed!
Estate of Denial® provides news, analysis and commentary on abusive practices occurring in probate courts and via probate instruments (wills, trusts, guardianships, powers of attorney). We provide original perspective to educate the public regarding this growing threat to both individual freedoms and property rights.
